i

Grand Canyon Monitoring

and Research Center

Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Project Report

for the

Glen Canyon Dam

Adaptive Management Program
ii

Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Project 2: Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem. 4

Project 3: Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at the 

Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales ................................................................................................... 12

Project 4: Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum............................................. 27

Project 5: Foodbase Monitoring and Research.................................................................................. 39

Project 6: Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub Aggregations and Fish Community 

Dynamics........................................................................................................................................... 46

Project 7: Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and around the Little Colorado River.......... 53

Project 8: Experimental Actions to Increase Abundance and Distribution of Native Fishes in Grand 

Canyon............................................................................................................................................... 62

Project 9: Understanding the Factors Determining Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and 

Movement of Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons............................................................. 67

Project 10: Where does the Glen Canyon Dam Rainbow Trout Tailwater Fishery End? – Integrating 

Fish and Channel Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam ............................................................. 75

Project 11: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis of Riparian Vegetation, Landform 

Change and Aquatic-Terrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities ................................................... 81

Project 12: Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Culturally-Important Plants in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem: A Pilot Study to Explore Relationships between Vegetation Change and 

Traditional Cultural Values............................................................................................................... 96

Project 13: Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research .................................................................... 102

Project 14: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Services and Support .................................... 106

Project 15: Administration .............................................................................................................. 111

Project 1: Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water-Quality Monitoring...................... 113
3

Introduction

Following is the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s (GCMRC) Fiscal Year 2015

Annual Accomplishment Report. This report is prepared primarily for the Technical Work Group 

(TWG) of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). It includes a 

summary of accomplishments, shortcomings, and recommendations related to projects included 

in GCMRC’s FY15 Work Plan for the GCDAMP.1

 

1 This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely 

best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on 

the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the 

authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
4

Project 2: Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem

Program Manager 

(PM) David Topping Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

David Topping, USGS, 

GCMRC

Ron Griffiths, USGS, GCMRC

Dave Dean, USGS, GCMRC

Email dtopping@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7396

SUMMARY 

The Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport Core Monitoring Project is focused on 

high-resolution monitoring of stage, discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved 

oxygen, turbidity, and suspended-sediment concentration and particle size at a number of mainstem 

and tributary sites located throughout the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE). These data are 

collected to address GCDAMP GOAL 7 and are used to inform managers on the physical status of 

the Colorado River in the CRE and how this physical status is affected by dam operations in near 

realtime. The high-resolution suspended-sediment data collected under this project are used to 

construct the mass-balance sediment budgets used by managers to trigger controlled floods under 

the 2012–2020 HFE protocol. Details of this ongoing project (including descriptions of the datacollection locations) are provided in the GCMRC 2015–17 Triennial Work Plan.

Science Questions Addressed: 

The Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport Core Monitoring Project addresses the 

following fundamental science question in an ongoing manner: 

"How do operations at Glen Canyon Dam affect flows, water quality, sediment 

transport, and sediment resources in the CRE?"

During 2015, this question was addressed through:

(1) Maintenance and continual updating of the database and website at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ or 

http://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/discharge_qw_sediment/ described in detail below. All stage, discharge, 

water quality (water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), suspendedsediment, and bed-sediment data collected at all active and inactive monitoring stations on the 

Colorado River and its tributaries are posted at this website. User-interactive tools at this website 

allow visualization and downloading of these data and the construction of sand budgets (as 

described below).

(2) Publication of 5 peer-reviewed interpretive papers. The interpretive papers published during 

2015 focused on: a physically based method for using multi-frequency acoustics to measure 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River, how dam operations affect 

the sediment resources within Marble Canyon, why direct measurements are required to know the 
5

sediment supply from smaller tributaries that have been deemed possible important suppliers of sand 

based on estimates, the design of a database and user-interactive web site to serve the data provided 

by this project.

Most of the subsidiary science questions listed in the 2015–17 Triennial Work Plan have their basis 

in the above fundamental question. Thus additional publications completed during the remaining 

period of the 2015–17 Work Plan will use the data collected during the period of the 2013–14 work 

plan and 2015 and also address this fundamental question, with perhaps the most important of these 

publications having the working title "Evaluation of the effects of 2008–2016 dam operations on 

sediment storage dynamics within the CRE."

Promised products:

The following list of promised products is taken verbatim from the 2015–17 Triennial Work Plan: 

"During FY15–17, we propose to continue to serve project data and user-interactive sediment 

budgets through this website. In addition, work will continue to add additional data streams to this 

website and expand the user-interactive tools. Chief among the new tools to be developed are userinteractive duration curves. Duration curves are one of the most useful and powerful tools for 

conveying complicated hydrologic and water-quality datasets. We have successfully used duration 

curves to analyze changes in stage, discharge, and turbidity for various periods and reaches in the 

CRe (Topping and others, 2003; Voichick and Topping, 2014). Once the duration-curve tool is 

added to the website, the user will be able to plot the percentage of time any parameter served on our 

website is equaled or exceeded for any user-specified period.

In addition to the collection and serving of the basic stream-flow, water-quality, and sedimenttransport data, time is spent in this project interpreting the data and reporting on the results and 

interpretations in peer-reviewed articles in the areas of hydrology, water quality, and sediment 

transport. The interpretive papers published by this project are designed to address key questions 

relevant to river management, especially to management in the GCDAMP (see proposed publication 

list below). The data collected in this project form the basis of the collaborations listed in the next 

section. All of the projects funded in the areas of physical science, biology, and socioeconomics 

require the data collected by this project. During FY15–17, several peer-reviewed journal articles 

and USGS reports will be published on the following topics:

• Analysis of Paria River and Little Colorado River hydrology 1920s-present with implications 

for long-term sediment management in the CRe (lead author Topping, to be completed 

during FY15–16)

• Geomorphology, hydraulic geometry, and sediment transport in the Paria River (lead author 

Topping, to be completed during FY17)

• Analysis of a decade of measurements of sediment transport in the lesser tributaries: Do the 

lesser tributaries matter to CRe sediment mass balance? (lead author Griffiths, to be 

completed during FY15)

• Multiple articles on the linkage among hydrology, sediment transport, and geomorphic 

change in the Little Colorado River, with implications for aquatic and riparian habitat in the 

lower Little Colorado River (lead author Dean, to be completed during FY16–17)
6

• Evaluation of effects of 2008-2016 dam operations on sediment storage dynamics within the 

CRe (lead author Topping, to be completed during FY17)

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

published by project personnel and USGS cooperators."

This project is on track to complete on schedule all of the above promised products as well as 

the data products listed in the 2015–17 Triennial Work Plan.

Detailed list of accomplishments/products: 

In summary, this project coordinated the collection of stage, discharge, water-quality, and sedimenttransport monitoring data at 7 mainstem monitoring locations and 8 major tributary locations and 8 

lesser tributary monitoring locations during FY15 (suspended sediment is monitored at a subset of 5 

mainstem and 16 tributary monitoring locations). At all sites, acoustic instrument calibrations have 

been finalized and are actively being verified, with out-of-sample errors calculated. This work has 

resulted in the continued ability to serve data at a website and update it on a daily to monthly basis 

(depending on the monitoring station). The two urls to use to access this new website are: 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ or 

http://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/discharge_qw_sediment/.

The second url provides backup access to the website in case the local web servers in Flagstaff go 

down. The design and programming of new features for the website occupied most of the time on 

this project during 2015. The existence of the database and website has allowed much greater 

efficiency and productivity in this project (with time for many more peer-reviewed interpretive 

publications) during the first year of 2015-17 work plan than existed in the past.

Specifically, progress was made on many fronts within the Streamflow, Water Quality, and 

Sediment Transport Project during FY15, with multiple accomplishments.

1) Much effort was spent during FY15 on refinements to the database and website, with many new 

datasets uploaded. This website provides access to all of the current and legacy data collected by the 

Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport Project and to all of the historical unit-value 

gage height and discharge data collected by the USGS at USGS gaging stations with QW and 

sediment data relevant to the CRE. The user-interactive tools available at this website to visualize 

and operate on the data are unique in the world. 

Twice daily, the database driving the website automatically uploads data from the USGS realtime 

gaging stations within the CRE and performs sediment-load computations using the latest data. This 

approach allows river managers to make decisions based on the most accurate and recent data 

available. 

The website allows user-interactive plotting and downloading of all data for any time period for 

which data are available. In addition to user-interactive plotting, the web site allows user interactive 

sand budgets to be constructed for all 6 reaches of the Colorado River in the CRE between Lees 

Ferry and the Lake Mead delta. These user-interactive sand budgets allow the user to modify the 
7

contribution of bedload and to modify the uncertainties in the data. This ability allows managers to 

evaluate “how well the sand budgets need to be known” in their decision-making process. The userinteractive sediment load calculations and sediment budgets at the website have become integral to 

the Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the 2012–2020 HFE Protocol. 

Work began during FY15 on the programming and design of the new "duration-curve tool" 

promised in the 2015–17 work plan. This tool should be completed and released on the website 

before the end of FY16. Work also began on the development of an ftp site within the website at 

which all data from sediment-transport research river trips will be available to be downloaded.

The servers supplying data to this website are housed at the USGS EROS Data Center in South 

Dakota for greater security and IT service (meaning the websites will be less likely to go down or 

experience catastrophic loss of data).

2) All monitoring data required by this project were collected. Processing of all data is complete and 

all data have been uploaded to and are available at the website, except for laboratory analyses of 

some of the suspended-sediment data from automatic pump samplers and from the last of multiple 

large floods on the Paria River in summer-fall 2015 (this task will be completed by the end of 

February 2015, as is the usual schedule for this project).

3) Discharge measurements, suspended-sediment samples, and bed-sediment samples were collected 

during the November 2014 HFE at multiple sites on the Colorado River: Lees Ferry, RM30, RM61, 

the Grand Canyon gaging station at RM87, RM166, and the above Diamond Creek gaging station at 

RM225. All discharge measurements from the 2014 HFE have been processed with stage-discharge 

ratings verified or adjusted as necessary; all suspended-sediment and bed-sediment samples from the 

2014 HFE have been processed and uploaded to the website. These can be plotted or downloaded 

on demand. 

4) 15-minute stage, discharge, and water temperature data (updated in realtime) and other QW data 

from the 9 gaging stations maintained by the USGS Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers under 

this project are available at http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/, 

http://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/discharge_qw_sediment/, or http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

5) 15-minute stage, discharge, water temperature, specific-conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen 

and suspended-sediment-concentration and grain-size data from the stations maintained by GCMRC 

under this project have been processed and are served at the new website at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ or 

http://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/discharge_qw_sediment/. These data are updated as frequently as every 

month, depending on data-collection location. 

6) Five major peer-reviewed reports were published during 2015: a journal article published in the 

American Geophysical Union journal EOS - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, and 

four Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling proceedings 

papers. These reports are listed below.
8

7) Substantial progress was made on the publication a book describing a new physically based 

method for making accurate continuous measurements of suspended sediment in rivers using 

acoustics. This book has been reviewed and revised. The authors of this journal article are David J. 

Topping and Scott A. Wright and it is entitled "Long-term continuous acoustic suspended-sediment 

measurements in rivers." This book should be approved as a U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper by mid-winter. 

8) Two abstracts were published and presented at the 2014 Fall Meeting of the American 

Geophysical Union and three abstracts were submitted for presentation at the 2015 Fall Meeting of 

the American Geophysical Union. An additional extended abstract was also submitted for the 2016 

River Flow Conference, an international meeting to be held in 2016 in Saint Louis, MO.

9) Substantial progress was made on research aimed at better understanding sediment transport and 

its linkages to geomorphology in the Little Colorado River basin and sediment delivery from the 

Little Colorado River to the CRE. The first part of this research effort has been largely focused on 

Moenkopi Wash, a tributary to the Little Colorado River that was historically responsible for the 

highest sand concentrations measured in the Little Colorado River. This research is being conducted 

because recent data suggest that the sand delivery from the Little Colorado river to the CRE has 

decreased over time and that the loss of Moenkopi Wash as a major sand supplier to the Little 

Colorado River could be a chief cause of this reduction. This research has led to an abstract that will 

be presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union and will lead to a peerreviewed publication to be completed during FY 2016.

10) Continued progress was also made on completing the delivery of the historical periods of record 

for unit-value stage and discharge for USGS gaging stations with QW and sediment data relevant to 

the CRE. As of December 2015, the following historical periods of record have been processed and 

are available at http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ or 

http://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/discharge_qw_sediment/. All other historical periods of record for unitvalue stage and discharge for USGS gaging stations with QW and sediment data relevant to the CRE 

will be delivered during the 2016–-2017 period of the 2015–17 workplan. As of December 2015, 

the only unit-value stage and discharge dataset remaining to be uploaded is the 1924–1996 period of 

record at 09382000 Paria River at Lees Ferry, AZ. Interpretive journal articles utilizing these data to 

aid in river management will be published as described in the 2015–17 work plan.

09380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ Entire period of station record processed and on 

website (1921-present).

09381500 Paria River near Cannonville, UT Entire period of station record processed and on 

website (1951-1956, 2001-2006).

09401000 Little Colorado River at Grand Falls, AZ Entire period of station record processed on 

website (1926-1960, 1994-1995).

09401240 Moenkopi Wash near Shonto, AZ Entire period of station record processed and available 

on website (1974-1975)

09401250 Moenkopi Wash near Moenkopi, AZ Entire period of station record processed and 

available on website (1974-1976).

09401260 Moenkopi Wash at Moenkopi, AZ Entire period of station record processed and 

available on website (1976-present).
9

09401280 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba, AZ Entire period of station record processed and available 

on website (1926-1941).

09401400 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba City, AZ Entire period of station record processed on 

website (1941-1954, 1965-1977). 

09401500 Moenkopi Wash near Cameron, AZ Entire period of station record processed and 

available on website (1954-1965).

09402000 Little Colorado River near Cameron, AZ Entire period of station record processed on 

website (1947-present).

09402500 Colorado River near Grand Canyon, AZ Entire period of station record processed on 

website (1923-present).

09403000 Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon, AZ Entire period of station record processed on 

website (1924-1974, 1991-1993).

09403780 Kanab Creek near Fredonia, AZ 1964-1977 on website. 1978-1980 remaining to be 

processed.

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Online 

database 

and webbased 

application

s

Discharge, sediment transport, 

water-quality, and sand-budget 

data are served through the 

GCMRC website. A web-based 

application has been maintained 

to provide stakeholders, 

scientists, and the public with the 

ability to perform interactive 

online data visualization and 

analysis, including the ondemand construction of sand 

budgets. These capabilities are 

unique in the world.

ongoing

updated 

every 

month

updated 

every 

month

http://www.gcmrc.gov/disch

arge_qw_sediment/

http://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/

discharge_qw_sediment/

Online 

realtime 

database

Discharge and water-quality data 

collected at 9 gaging stations by 

the Utah and Arizona Water 

Science Centers under project 

are posted to the web every 

hour.

n/a hourly n/a http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis

Abstracts

presented

American Geophysical Union 

abstract for 2014 Fall Meeting 

entitled "The role of sediment 

budgets in the implementation 

and evaluation of controlled 

floods to restore sandbars along 

the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona." Presentation 

made at AGU in December 2014.

FY15 Dec. 2014 Dec. 2014

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., 

and Topping, D.J, 2014, The 

role of sediment budgets in 

the implementation and 

evaluation of controlled floods 

to restore sandbars along the 

Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: Abstract 

EP32A-06 presented at 2014 

Fall Meeting, AGU, San 

Francisco, Calif., 15-19 Dec.
10

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

American Geophysical Union 

abstract for 2014 Fall Meeting 

entitled "Deciphering Paria and 

Little Colorado River flood 

regimes and their significance in

multi-objective adaptive 

management strategies for 

Colorado River resources in 

Grand Canyon." Presentation 

made at AGU in December 2014.

FY 15 Dec. 2014 Dec. 2014

Jain, S., Topping, D.J, and 

Melis, T.S, 2014, Deciphering 

Paria and Little Colorado

River flood regimes and their 

significance in multi-objective 

adaptive management 

strategies for Colorado River 

resources in Grand Canyon: 

Abstract H51J-0743 

presented at 2014 Fall 

Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, 

Calif., 15-19 Dec.

Journal 

articles and 

other major 

pubs

Federal Interagency Conference 

on Sedimentation and Hydrologic 

Modeling proceedings paper 

entitled "Physically based 

method for measuring 

suspended-sediment 

concentration and grain size 

using multi-frequency arrays of 

single-frequency acousticDoppler profilers"

FY15 April 2015 April 2015

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., 

Griffiths, R.E., and Dean, D.J., 

2015, Physically based 

method for measuring 

suspended-sediment 

concentration and grain size 

using multi-frequency arrays 

of single-frequency acousticDoppler profilers: 

Proceedings of the 3rd Joint 

Federal Interagency 

Conference on Sedimentation 

and Hydrologic Modeling, 

April 19-23, Reno, Nevada, 

USA, pp. 834-846, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJF

IC/Proceedings.pdf.

Federal Interagency Conference 

on Sedimentation and Hydrologic 

Modeling proceedings paper 

entitled "Reconciliation of fluxbased and morphologic-based 

sediment budgets"

FY15 April 2015 April 2015

Grams, P.E., Buscombe, D., 

Topping, D.J., Hazel, J.E., Jr., 

and Kaplinski, M., 2015, 

Reconciliation of flux-based 

and morphologic-based 

sediment budgets: 

Proceedings of the 3rd Joint 

Federal Interagency 

Conference on Sedimentation 

and Hydrologic Modeling, 

April 19-23, Reno, Nevada, 

USA, p. 1144-1155, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJF

IC/Proceedings.pdf.

EOS, Transactions of the 

American Geophysical Union 

journal article entitled "Building 

sandbars in the Grand Canyon"

FY16 June 

2015

June 

2015

Grams, P. E., Schmidt, J. C., 

Wright, S. A., Topping, D. 

J.,Melis, T. S., and Rubin, D. 

M. ,2015, Building sandbars in 

the Grand Canyon, EOS, 

Transactions of the American 

Geophysical Union, v. 96, n. 

11, p. 12–16, 

https://eos.org/features/buildin

g-sandbars-in-the-grandcanyon
11

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Federal Interagency Conference 

on Sedimentation and Hydrologic 

Modeling proceedings paper 

entitled "Inaccuracies in 

sediment budgets arising from 

estimations of tributary sediment 

inputs: An example from a 

monitoring network on the

southern Colorado Plateau"

FY15 April 2015 April 2015

Griffiths, R.E., and Topping, 

D.J., 2015, Inaccuracies in 

sediment budgets arising from 

estimations of tributary 

sediment inputs: An example 

from a monitoring network on 

the southern Colorado 

Plateau: Proceedings of the 

3rd Joint Federal Interagency 

Conference on Sedimentation 

and Hydrologic Modeling, 

April 19-23, Reno, Nevada, 

USA, p. 583-594, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJF

IC/Proceedings.pdf.

Federal Interagency Conference 

on Sedimentation and Hydrologic 

Modeling proceedings paper 

entitled "User-interactive 

sediment budgets in a browser: 

A web application for river 

science and management"

FY15 April 2015 April 2015

Sibley, D., Topping, D.J., 

Hines, M., and Garner, B., 

2015, User-interactive 

sediment budgets in a 

browser: A web application for 

river science and 

management: Proceedings of 

the 3rd Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on 

Sedimentation and Hydrologic 

Modeling, April 19-23, Reno, 

Nevada, USA, p. 595-605, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJF

IC/Proceedings.pdf.

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $619,000 $5,000 $50,000 $0 $480,000 $91,886 $1,245,886 

Actual

Spent $592,994 $9,828 $45,520 $10,795 $453,381 $88,712 $1,201,229 

(Over)/Under

Budget $26,006 ($4,828) $4,480 ($10,795) $26,619 $3,174 $44,657 

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Project 2 Salaries Total Travel & Training

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $$59,500, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

$10,800 Cooperative Agreement to Northern Arizona University - LCR Geomorphology.
12

Project 3: Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at 

the Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales

Program Manager 

(PM) Paul Grams Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

Paul Grams, USGS, GCMRC

Daniel Buscombe, USGS, 

GCMRC

Erich Mueller, USGS, 

GCMRC

Joel Sankey, USGS, GCMRC

Joseph Wheaton, Utah State 

Univ.

Brandon McElroy, Univ. Of 

Wyom.

Mark Schmeeckle, Ariz. State 

Univ.

Joe Hazel, No. Ariz. Univ.

Matt Kaplinski, No. Ariz. 

Univ.

Keith Kohl, USGS, GCMRC

Email pgrams@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7385

SUMMARY 

Introduction

In FY15, scientists from Project 3 collected all of the data on sandbars and in-channel sediment 

storage that was described in the FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan (TWP) during one project-specific 

downstream river trip and additional short trips to Diamond Creek and Lees Ferry. Findings 

published or presented in the past year describe the condition of sandbars and document the 

dynamics of local and reach-scale changes in sediment storage on the river bed. Below, we 

summarize specific accomplishments by project element. 

Summary of Progress by Project Element 

3.1.1 Sandbar monitoring – Joe Hazel, Matt Kaplinski, Rob Ross, Bob Tusso, Tim Andrews, Paul 

Grams, Daniel Buscombe, Erich Mueller

Sandbar and campsite monitoring was completed by conducting topographic surveys at 47 long-term 

monitoring sites in September/October 2014 and September/October 2015. The repeat topographic 

surveys show that, in October 2014, approximately 11 months after the 2013 HFE (the 2nd HFE 

released as part of the new HFE protocol), the median size of sandbar monitoring sites and 

associated campsite area had continued to increase. The surveys demonstrated that the HFE protocol 

was resulting in net deposition and the erosional trend evident in the 1990s and early 2000s was 

being offset by sand being redistributed to the channel margins above stage levels reached by 

normal dam operations. Sandbar response to recent HFEs was reported in a 2015 publication [Ref. 
13

2], which was originally an FY16 product in the work plan. Data from the 2015 monitoring trip are 

currently being processed and will be available at the time of the January 2016 Annual Reporting 

meeting.

Changes in campsite area are tracked by measuring the areas within camp boundaries that are used 

for camping. These surveys have been collected annually from 1998 to 2015. Previous analysis has 

shown that erosion and deposition of sand are the primary mechanisms that cause either increases or 

decreases in the area. Thus, while vegetation expansion is responsible for net long-term (decade 

scale) decline in the open areas within camp boundaries, changes in sandbar topography are the 

main source of year-to-year variability in campsite area. Sandbar deposition associated with high 

flows results in increases in campsite area, while post-HFE erosion causes decreases in campsite 

area. Results from the 2013, 2014, and 2015 surveys will be presented at the January 2016 reporting 

meeting.

Sandbars are also monitored at 43 locations by remote cameras. These provide high-resolution 

images of sandbars and other important features five times daily at each site. A photographic record 

at some of the sites exists as far back as the early 1990s. Using the photos, qualitative analyses of 

sandbar size can be made more quickly, frequently, and inexpensively than ground-based field 

surveys. The imagery is particularly valuable for rapid analysis of geomorphic events such as 

controlled high flows or tributary flash floods. Before and after images from the 2012 HFE 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/sandbartour2012/index.html), the 2013 HFE 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/sandbartour2013/index.html), and the 2014 HFE 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/sandbartour2014/index.html#), were posted to the web for public 

viewing within weeks of the water receding. Immediately after the 2014 HFE, 58% of the sandbars 

were larger than their pre-HFE condition (14% were smaller, and 29% exhibited negligible change). 

Three months later, 30% were still enlarged, while 20% were smaller and 50% about the same size. 

By October 2015, eleven months after the 2014 HFE, 58% of the sandbars were back to the pre-HFE 

size, while 42% were smaller (none of the sandbars were still substantially larger than they were 

before the 2014 HFE).

Development of a method to use the remote camera images to measure sandbar area at monthly 

intervals is ongoing. Stable rectifications for 22 mile and 30 mile sandbars are complete. In FY15, 

data were collected at almost all remote camera locations to allow registering the images and 

correction for camera movements during maintenance operations. This work was presented at a 

professional meeting and described in a proceedings paper [Ref. 11]. Difficulties in developing 

methods for automatically detecting sandbars from images using image processing techniques has 

delayed the submission of the planned journal article on the development of these methods. The 

development of a reliable unsupervised (fully automated) or partially supervised (minimal user 

input) method to segment sandbars in rectified images is crucial to the success of this technique 

because manual segmentation of sandbars is slow and subjective. We aim to resolve these 

difficulties, finalize and publish the method this coming year.

A comprehensive report on the long-term sandbar monitoring data [Hazel and others, in prep] was 

expected to be completed in 2015. Substantial progress was made in 2015, including a revision of all 

stage-discharge relations using data collected between 2006 and 2014. The relations, previously 

published in a 2006 Open-File Report, are now available to researchers as an easily accessed 
14

Lookup Table in Excel. The migration of the twenty-five year database from outdated survey 

software to a modern ESRI geodatabase is now complete and accessible to the public. The web 

interface allows any user to visualize and download the sandbar data for each monitoring site 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/sandbar/). Now that database integrity has been solidified, we anticipate the 

report will be ready for review by January 31, 2015. 

3.1.2 Sandbars from Remote sensing – Joel Sankey, Rob Ross, Paul Grams

Sand Classification

In FY15 we hired a geospatial data analyst to complete final edits of classifications of exposed sand 

above the elevation of the 8,000 ft3

/s stage (high-elevation sand) within more than 1,300 large 

eddies along the Colorado River in the overflight imagery acquired in 2002 and 2009. Change 

detection analysis of these datasets is underway and we will present the results at the Annual 

Reporting Meeting in winter of 2016. We will analyze the changes as a function of landform units 

within the geomorphic basemap (produced in this project element during FY15). In FY16 we will 

transition to producing a classification of high-elevation sand within the more than 1,300 large 

eddies in the overflight imagery acquired in 2013.

Analysis of Sandbar Area in Select Reaches, 1935–2009

We compiled existing geomorphic maps derived from aerial imagery for six reaches between Lees 

Ferry (River mile [RM] 0) and Furnace Flats (~RM 70), spanning dates from 1935 to 1996 at 

irregular temporal intervals. The existing maps for April 1996 (post high-flow experiment [HFE]) 

were updated with shorelines derived from 2002, 2005, and 2009 imagery, extending the analysis to 

a 74-year period. 

Sand area was calculated from these maps, and was tabulated for three periods, comprising pre-dam 

(1965), post-dam/pre-high-flow experiment (HFE) (1973-March 1996), and post-dam/post-HFE 

(April 1996-2009) datasets. Comparison of area of exposed sand measured from imagery to area of 

exposed sand measured by total station survey at 15 long-term monitoring sites measured within two 

weeks of aerial imagery collection shows a root-mean square (RMS) error of about 2%, indicating 

excellent agreement between the two data sets.

Sandbar area is generally greater in the images collected during the post-dam/post-HFE period than 

in the post-dam/pre-HFE period, and there is a negative correlation between sandbar area and time 

elapsed since the last controlled flood. The average responses only show the mean among the image 

collection dates, and are not necessarily representative for the time period. Because of this 

sensitivity to time of image acquisition and because all images were collected at different intervals 

relative to the most recent controlled flood, it is not possible to identify a trend in sandbar area with 

time between 2002 and 2009. The apparent trend between 2002 and 2009 is most likely attributable 

to the shorter elapsed time between the 2008 controlled flood and the 2009 images.

Because the volume of sand above the reference discharge of 227 m3/s is only a small fraction of the 

sand in storage, and sandbar area can increase without increases in volume, changes in sandbar area 

determined from analysis of aerial images cannot be interpreted to reflect changes in total sand 

storage. Thus, although the images showed larger area of sandbars in the post-dam period with 

controlled floods than in the post-dam period before controlled floods, this does not mean that there 
15

was more sand in the system during this period. 

This study involves only a subset of the reaches comprising the entire length of the Colorado River 

in Marble and Grand Canyons, downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. These findings may not, 

therefore, be representative of the entire system. These findings are reported in Ross and Grams 

[Ref. 9].

Analysis of 2002 and 2009 Four-Band Image Data

This project component is focused on producing maps of high-elevation (8,000-45,000 ft3/s) sand 

area. Mapping of exposed high-elevation sand within 1,368 sites that include most large sandbar 

deposition zones and camp sites throughout the river corridor has been completed for the 2009 

imagery and is currently being completed for the 2002 imagery. In addition to sand, classes of 

vegetation, water, bedrock, boulders, cobbles, smooth surfaces, and rough surfaces have been 

mapped for the 2002 and 2009 imagery. The water and vegetation maps were successfully 

completed in previous years. Mapping of the bedrock, boulders, cobbles, and smooth and rough 

surface classes were completed in 2013 and 2014 with an autonomous (unsupervised) classification 

method that also mapped the high elevation sand class. No further processing, accuracy assessment 

or analyses of the non-sand classes are planned.

In order to produce the best maps of high-elevation sand possible, the autonomous classification 

method is used to map sand, then the maps are manually edited, and the edited maps are evaluated 

with an accuracy assessment. The manual edit and accuracy assessment have been completed for the 

2009 imagery. The manual edit is still being completed for the 2002 imagery, however, the accuracy 

assessment has been completed for that portion of the 2002 sand maps that have been manually 

edited. The accuracy assessments evaluated the ability of the high elevation sand maps to predict the 

area of sand that was independently surveyed at 50 monitoring sites from the NAU sandbar timeseries. The results from the survey conducted most coincident in time to the particular overflight 

were used for comparison. The 2009 high-elevation sand maps predict the area of surveyed sand that 

was not covered by the vegetation in the respective imagery with 88% classification accuracy. The 

combination of the 2009 high-elevation sand and vegetation maps predicted the area of surveyed 

sand (including that covered by vegetation) with 92% classification accuracy. The completed 2002 

high-elevation sand maps can be evaluated with survey data from 30 of the monitoring sites. The 

2002 maps predict the area of surveyed sand that was not covered by the vegetation with 83% 

classification accuracy. The combination of the 2002 high-elevation sand and vegetation maps 

predicted the area of surveyed sand (including that covered by vegetation) with 87% classification 

accuracy.

Development of Geomorphic Base Map

We have completed draft geomorphic base maps for four reaches of the Colorado River, from Lees 

Ferry (RM 0) to National Canyon (RM 167), delineating deposits, features related to deposits, and 

channel proximity to these deposits and features. These features are created from 2009 imagery, 

with features created as polygons overlaying imagery using ESRI ArcGIS software. These maps 

were field-checked in September and October of 2015 and final editing is in progress. Following 

completion of these maps, the reaches between RM 167 and 270 and between Glen Canyon Dam 

and Lees Ferry will be mapped.
16

These geomorphic base maps will be used to provide information about canyon-wide distribution 

and characteristics of eddies, sandbars, and other features to assess variability in sandbar area and 

population, representativeness of other monitoring efforts, and groupings of sandbars by 

morphology and flood response. Assessment of the variability in sandbars will be done, in part, by 

integrating the geomorphic base maps with the aerial orthophoto analysis being conducted on 

~1,400 EDZs between Lees Ferry and Pierce Ferry, making it possible to relate changes to specific 

sandbar morphology.

3.1.3 Rapid topographic surveys with digital images using structure-from-motion (SFM) 

photogrammetry – Joseph Wheaton, Rebecca Rossi, Daniel Buscombe, Paul Grams

The objective of this work element is to develop and evaluate a methodology for low-cost and rapid 

monitoring of sandbars with a camera using structure-from-motion (SFM) multiple-view-stereo 

photogrammetry, to support geomorphic change detection. Work on the project began in September 

of 2014 and we hired a graduate research assistant, Rebecca Rossi, to lead this effort. Rebecca has 

had an incredibly productive first year on the project and has tested and refined image acquisition 

and post-processing methods and completed three river trips to acquire imagery and ground control 

data. In Fall 2014, we experimented with several different camera platforms, acquisition techniques 

and carried out a successful field campaign in conjunction with the sandbar mapping trip. Over the 

Fall and Winter, Rebecca post processed the data collected on that trip and compared the tradeoffs 

between different sampling techniques, lighting conditions, and post-processing environments. 

Based on her findings, she drafted a field acquisition protocol to test the extent to which such 

acquisition could be successfully undertaken through citizen science efforts. She trained a number of 

volunteers and teenagers and tested these methods on an early summer Grand Canyon Youth trip. 

Over the summer, she analyzed those data as well as numerous experiments she conducted in Logan, 

Utah to refine and improve the sampling protocol. She was able to isolate techniques that didn’t 

work and/or were less efficient, and hone in on a protocol in which two individuals can sample most 

sandbars in 30 to 90 minutes, which was done in parallel with traditional NAU total station surveys 

at each sandbar on the fall 2015 sandbar monitoring trip. Now that her acquisition techniques have 

been refined, she has a draft field acquisition protocol and is working on her first manuscript to 

document the workflow. She has been working on a series of accuracy assessments and comparisons 

with total-station surveys that will result in error models for each of the SFM surveys. The final 

protocol will lay out clear guidelines for how to robustly and rapidly acquire imagery to support 

SFM with a pole-mounted camera, and then post process data to produce deliverables including a 

cleaned high resolution point cloud, bare-earth DEM, surface roughness map, orthorectified high 

resolution imagery, and an error model concurrent with the DEM. 

3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at select monitoring sites – Tom Gushue, Rob Weber, Joe 

Hazel, Paul Grams

As of September 2015, 12 of the 45 long-term sandbar monitoring sites have been processed using 

photogrammetry methods to extract digital terrain models (DTMs) from 1984 aerial photography. 

Terrestrial land surveys of these sites began in 1990, with some survey dates having bathymetric 

surveys beginning in 1996. The current project work to extend terrestrial measurements of these 

sandbar sites began in 2013, with four new sites scheduled to be processed each year. Site selection 

for performing photogrammetry work has been limited on the availability and number of ground 
17

control points (GCPs) for any one site. The GCPs must be collected as part of total station surveys 

that are the basis for the on-going sandbar site monitoring project. The remoteness and extreme 

environment of Grand Canyon places limits on field data collection efforts.

One of the most critical steps in the project workflow is the extraction of surface elevations from the 

orthorectified photographs. This is accomplished in ERDAS Imagine using their proprietary 

Automated Terrain Extraction (ATE) software module. For some sandbar monitoring sites, an 

insufficient number of elevations were being generated on the relatively flat, bright portions of the 

sandbars. In FY15, we obtained a demonstration license for a new version of the ATE software 

module. This new module includes more sophisticated settings and algorithms for deriving 3-D 

point clouds from stereo pair photography. Early results from using the new module are very 

promising with point cloud data containing hundreds to thousands of more points on the actual 

sandbars in the 1984 photography with the most improvement occurring on the relatively flat, low 

elevation portions of the exposed sandbar. Additional work is required to further refine the methods 

involved with using this new software. Once the new workflow is established, we will reprocess 

previously completed sites. Reprocessing will only involve running the new ATE module; most of 

the previous work (locating and converting 1984 images; define photogrammetric block; collecting, 

processing and assigning Ground Control Points, identifying and assigning Tie Points, solving block 

triangulation parameters, etc.) will not have to be redone.

Results from “old” ATE module (RM065) Results from enhanced ATE module (RM065)

3.2. Sand Storage Monitoring – Paul Grams, Matt Kaplinski, Joe Hazel, Keith Kohl, Daniel 

Buscombe

The purpose of the sediment storage monitoring element of this project is to track long-term trends 

in sand storage to provide a robust measure of management objectives regarding fine sediment 

conservation. In other words, this project provides the direct measure of changes in sand storage in 

the channel and in eddies over the time scale of long-term management actions, such as the HFE 

protocol. An additional purpose of this project is to track the location of changes in sand storage 

between the channel and eddies and between high- and low-elevation deposits. This monitoring 

involves repeat measurements of the river bed and banks over long reaches.

Data Collection

In 2014, we mapped 19.7 of the 27.4 miles (72%) of river channel that comprise lower Marble 

Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon. (RM 61 to 87). Collection of these data involved 49 multibeam 
18

sonar surveys, 53 singlebeam sonar surveys, and 84 total station surveys. We also collected 4,051 

subaqueous grain size images for grain-size analysis at 1,784 locations. Using similar methods, 106 

subaerial grain-size images were collected at five sandbars. In addition, 41 remote, daily cameras 

were serviced and the data downloaded. There were pit excavations made at nine sandbars for 

sedimentological interpretation of the 2013 HFE deposits. The deposits were sampled for vertical 

grain size trends. On this trip, 34 panels were photographed and surveyed at five sandbars for 

oblique photo orthorectification and 115 new ‘hardpoints’ (places with hard rock geology whose 

position can be considered stable) were identified and surveyed for rectification of historical images 

and accuracy analysis of current datasets.

Data Processing

Final processing and generation of digital elevation models for data collected in 2009 and 2012 for 

the reach between RM 30 and the Little Colorado River (RM 61) is complete. To date, 36 of the 87 

total station surveys collected on the May 2013 channel mapping trip have been processed. The raw 

data have been edited for errors and blunders and coordinates generated in AZ state plane 

coordinates. Topographic surfaces were modeled from these data to generate maps for 13 of the 30 

miles surveyed on the river. While these data have not been analyzed for changes with other 

surveys, a qualitative assessment of sandbars on the river trip is that erosion of newly built bars 

following the November 2012 HFE had been largely minimal in the six months following the event 

The other data collected in 2013, including bathymetric surveys, are currently being processed and 

we anticipate that DEMs of the entire river segment will be completed by March 2015.

Results and Analysis

The acoustic bed-sediment classification method using Multi Beam Echo Sounder (MBES) data 

developed during the last workplan has been published [Buscombe and others, 2014a; 2014b], 

considerably refined and successfully applied to all data collected during channel mapping of 

RM30-61 during 2009 and again in 2012. This bed sediment grain size information has been 

factored into estimates of changes in sand storage, in order to better constrain uncertainties in 

calculated sediment budgets [Ref. 8]. The technique has now also been successfully applied to 

channel mapping data collected in RM0–30 during 2013. The theoretical development of acoustic 

methods for classification of bed sediments using MBES backscatter data has continued [Refs. 5 and 

18] as well as computational developments [Ref. 3] that make the technique faster to implement and 

more amenable to widespread application. We have developed a new underwater camera system that 

will enable us to collect better underwater imagery for the purposes of calibrating and validating 

acoustic bed sediment classification methods for complex sediment mixtures (e.g. sand and gravel, 

gravel and boulders, sediment and vegetation, etc).

We have also developed and published a technique to classify bed texture using low-cost sidescan 

sonar [Refs. 4, 6 and 22]. In addition, we are developing an acoustic method by which to detect and 

classify submerged vegetation. To that end, we conducted fieldwork in Glen Canyon in December 

2014 and again in October 2015 to collect concurrent sonar and underwater video data, in order to 

establish a baseline map of submerged vegetation. The acoustic method looks promising and if 

successful will enable large-scale mapping of benthic vegetation, which is a dominant control on the 

food base in Glen Canyon. We have begun work on a video-editing software tool specifically for 

vegetation mapping using merged sonar and underwater video data. In FY16, this work will also 

help us classify bed sediments reliably in the presence of significant coverage of submerged 
19

vegetation using both MBES and sidescan based techniques, by expanding our methods for mapping 

bed composition to include submerged vegetation.

In addition to developing a new underwater video system, we have collected grain size data using 

our existing underwater camera system during 2 visits to Western Grand Canyon this year (in 

support of project 3.4). We had decided to delay the planned report on grain-size measurements 

using the eyeball system, 2000 – present, until 3 things had happened: 1) a reanalysis of all sediment 

imagery collected to date with a consistent and updated analysis method; 2) a reorganization of all 

data in a consistent manner; and 3) the development of a new web-browser-based application for 

analyzing sediment imagery for grain size. These 3 tasks are now complete, so we are now able to 

start on the report, which will be completed within the first half of FY16.

Repeat mapping of the river channel has demonstrated that changes in storage are highly variable 

from one storage location (eddy) to the next. Repeat mapping of sandbars and the river channel in 

lower Marble Canyon (RM 30 to 61) shows scour of the river bed and decreases in sandbar storage 

volume between May 2009 and May 2012. Most of this erosion occurred during the 2011 

equalization flows and most of the sediment loss was from the river bed in the channel rather than 

from eddies or higher elevation sandbars. The magnitude of this sediment loss was less than the 

average annual input of sand from the Paria River. This suggests that, despite the large amount of 

sediment evacuation caused by equalization flows, most of the evacuated sediment was likely 

recently accumulated Paria River sand inputs rather than older deposits of pre-dam sediment. 

Analysis of this repeat map that includes more than 80 large sandbars has also been used to evaluate 

the representativeness of the long-term monitoring sandbars in this reach [Ref. 8]. 

We have developed new methods to automate mapping bed texture using acoustic backscatter and 

published these methods in journal articles.

3.3 Sandbar Modeling – Erich Mueller, Mark Schmeeckle, Daniel Buscombe, Paul Grams

The goal of this project element is to improve our understanding of the factors that contribute to 

spatial variability in sandbar response to HFEs and other dam operational flows. In FY15, we began 

a systematic effort to document and quantify the controls on different site behavior, building on the 

work of Grams and others (2013) that identified different relations between discharge and sand 

volume at different sites. For this analysis, we have collaborated closely with ecologists from Project 

11 on the retrospective analysis of coupled sandbar-riparian vegetation dynamics. Additionally, we 

recruited an externally funded Masters student from Delft University to model hydraulic-vegetation 

feedbacks on eddy sandbars in support of Projects 3.3 and 11.3. We have also continued to refine a 

new 3-dimensional Large Eddy Simulation (LES) model for eddy hydraulics (Alvarez, 2015; 

Alvarez and others, accepted pending revision), and applied the model to six sites in Lower Marble 

Canyon (LMC). 

As an initial step in understanding spatial variability in bar response, we developed preliminary 

sandbar groupings of similar response and long-term evolution for the NAU monitoring sites. In 

FY15, we focused our efforts on eddies with well-defined reattachment bars, with particular focus 

on LMC. Our analysis showed that eddy sandbar behavior, in terms of HFE response and discharge-
20

volume relations, was strongly linked to the degree of riparian vegetation establishment on bar 

surfaces. Geomorphic mapping of the entire LMC reach shows that the proportion of eddy area 

stabilized by vegetation is negatively correlated with water surface slope and the rate of stage 

change with discharge. Less vegetated sites are more dynamic; they tend to build open sandbars 

during HFEs, and show greater topographic variability in the eddy compared to the main channel. In 

contrast, deposition of open sandbars is limited where vegetation establishment has decreased 

channel width (c.f. Sankey and others, 2015). Changes in sand storage in the main channel are 

greater than storage change in the eddy at these lower gradient sites, and controlled floods tend to 

evacuate sand that has accumulated on the bed.

In light of these results, we developed LES hydraulic models for six sites in LMC exhibiting 

different fan-eddy geometries and different degrees of vegetation establishment. Those results 

demonstrate how both eddy geometry and bar stabilization can influence patterns of eddy 

hydraulics. For example, eddy velocities are greatest in the most dynamic eddies – those sites where 

sandbars build and erode rapidly. By contrast, eddy velocities are lower at sites with greater 

vegetation encroachment, and, in some cases, we see a fundamental change in eddy hydraulics 

resulting from channel narrowing in the eddy. Overall, these modeling results are consistent with our 

interpretation of the empirical data. Initial results from this work will be presented at the American 

Geophysical Union conference in December, 2015 and a journal article will be prepared in FY16. 

Further work will include a more detailed retrospective analysis of sandbar-vegetation response at 

selected bars in collaboration with Project 11.3, development of a simple predictive model of 

sandbar response (some initial development having occurred in FY15), and further implementation 

of flow modeling specific to both vegetation effects (Delft student) and channel geometry (LES 

model).

A.4 Connecting total sand transport, bed morphodynamics, and sand budgets in Grand 

Canyon –Daniel Buscombe, Brandon McElroy, Thomas Ashley, Matt Kaplinski, Paul Grams

We have carried out repeat high-resolution bathymetric and flow-field surveys over sand bedform

fields in a selected reach (near Diamond Creek in Western Grand Canyon), during 2 field campaigns 

(March and July 2015) over a range of discharges. This has proved very successful, and the data 

collected are allowing us to estimate bedload and bed sand fluxes associated with the deformation 

and migration of bedforms by applying, and modifying where necessary, existing numerical 

techniques and theory. Initial results suggest that, at least at Diamond Creek over the range of flows 

studied, that bedload contributes more to total load than previously thought. However, we have 

evidence that suggests this isn’t necessarily true everywhere at all times. In 2016, we will finalize 

the estimates for bedload flux from these measurements and collect additional measurements during 

a high flow when/if a high flow occurs. Initial results from this work will be presented at the 

American Geophysical Union conference in December, 2015 and a journal article will be prepared 

in FY16. 

3.5 Control Network and Survey Support – Keith Kohl, Rob Ross, Joe Hazel, Paul Grams

An accurate geodetic control network is required to support nearly every aspect of this project as 

well as other GCMRC monitoring projects. The purpose of the control network is to ensure that 

spatial data acquired on all projects are collected with accurate and repeatable spatial reference. The 
21

GCMRC control network report describes the purpose, collection methods, reference systems, 

coordinates and estimated errors resulting from least-squares adjustments of rim, primary, 

secondary, and tertiary levels of geodetic control. Specific control network and survey support 

activates in 2015 are summarized below:

• A new Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) at the Grand Canyon 

Emergency Services Building on the South Rim of Grand Canyon was installed. A 

second CORS station outside of Tuba City, AZ was also added to the network. GCMRC 

acquisition of an Arizona State grant provides NGS support for data acquisition, storage, 

and archive of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data. These stations provide the 

most accurate control available and efficient collection and archival protocols. 

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/

• Project element 3.1.1 (Sandbar monitoring) was supported with survey control, survey 

equipment and field support. Most remote cameras from Project element 3.1.2 have been 

positioned for image rectification.

• Project element 3.1.3 (Structure-From-Motion) was supported by delivering required 

coordinates for fiducial targets.

• Project element 3.1.4 (Historical imagery rectification) was supported by delivery of 

reference coordinates of photo-identifiable fixed points visible in 1983/1984 and 2013 

imagery datasets.

• Project element 3.2 (Channel Mapping) was supported by equipment preparation, 

software, control coordinates, survey files, and the positioning of 31 navigation stations 

for the Glen Canyon mapping project. There are currently 85 control points in the 

network upstream of the Lees Ferry gage with height accuracies better than 6cm at 95% 

confidence. The network has been extended to published NAVD88 benchmarks W405 

(PID GP0118) and Y405 (PID GP0115) on Glen Canyon Dam.

• Project 2 (Sediment Transport) was supported by positioning navigation stations and 

gage reference for USGS gage 09404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs.

• Project 4 (Terrestrial LiDAR) was supported by projecting and scaling of ground control 

survey measurements to Arizona State Plane Coordinate System.

• Project 11 (Vegetation Monitoring) was supported by delivering stage information for 

sample plots at 45 sites.

• GNSS and terrestrial surveys of tributary gages (Project 2) were performed at Tanner 

Wash.

• All survey coordinates, estimated errors, and survey measurements collected through 

2015 have been archived in a comprehensive ESRI GIS database (Project 14).
22

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Project Element 3.1 – Sandbar Monitoring

Online 

data

Data from long-term 

sandbar monitoring sites, 

web interface

Annual Jan. 2015; 

2016 -- http://www.gcmrc.gov/sandbar/

data

Data from long-term 

sandbar monitoring sites

Annual

Jan. 2015; 

2016 --

Presented at Jan. 2015 

reporting meeting; will 

be presented at Jan. 

2016 reporting meeting. 

photos

Images from daily remote 

camera monitoring of 

sandbars, web interface

Annual

Jan. 2015; 

2016 --

Photos uploaded to 

website following each 

HFE: 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/s

andbar/

Article

New High Flow Protocol 

Contributes to Sandbar 

Gains in Grand Canyon

FY16

Jun. 2015 -- Publication: [2]

Map/r

eport

Geomorphic base map FY15 May 

2016

Mapping in progress, 

report in preparation

report

Methods for measuring 

sandbar areas and volumes 

from remote camera 

images

FY15

April 

2015

July 

2016

Publication: [11] and 

additional publication 

to be produced in 2016

Project 3.1.3: No FY2015 

products. Updates to be 

provided at annual meeting 

and professional meetings.

Presentation: [25]

Project Element 3.2 – Sand Storage Monitoring

repor

t

Report and maps for RM 0 

to 30 (mapped in 2013)

FY15 March 

2016

Data nearly complete. 

Report in preparation.

repor

t

Report and maps for eastern 

Grand Canyon (RM 61 to 

87, mapped in 2011 and 

2014)

FY15

June 

2016

Data processing 

delayed (see above).

repor

t

Report/journal article on 

geomorphic changes in 

eastern Grand Canyon, 2011 

FY15 Aug. 

2016

Delayed owing to 

processing delay.
23

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

to 2014

repor

t

Report on bed-sediment 

grain-size measurements 

using the eyeball system, 

2000 – present

FY15

June 

2016

Deferred pending 

methods finalization 

(see above)

Project Element 3.3 – Sandbar Modeling

No FY2015 products. 

Updates to be provided at 

annual meeting and 

professional meetings.

Presentations: [16;24]

Project Element 3.4 – Bedload

No FY2015 products. 

Updates to be provided at 

annual meeting and 

professional meetings.

Presentations: [17;23]

Project Element 3.5 – Control Network and Survey Support

No FY15 products. 

Data collected and 

processed on schedule.

List of Publications and Presentations

FY 2015 Project 3 Publications (published or submitted for review as of Nov. 12, 2015)

1. Alvarez, L.V. (2015) Turbulence, Sediment Transport, Erosion, and Sandbar Beach 

Failure Processes in Grand Canyon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, 

AZ, 176pp. http://repository.asu.edu/items/30069

2. Grams, P. E., J. C. Schmidt, S. A. Wright, D. J. Topping, T. S. Melis, and D. M. Rubin 

(2015), Building Sandbars in the Grand Canyon, EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 

96(11), 12–16. https://eos.org/features/building-sandbars-in-the-grand-canyon

3. Buscombe, D., 2016, Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial 

data. Computers and Geosciences 86, 92-108, 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098300415300704

4. Buscombe, D., P. E. Grams, and S. M. C. Smith (2015), Automated Riverbed Sediment 

Classification Using Low-Cost Sidescan Sonar, J. Hydraul. Eng., 06015019, 

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001079. 
24

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001079

5. Buscombe, D., P. E. Grams, M. A. Kaplinski, R. Tusso, and D. M. Rubin (2015), 

Hydroacoustic signatures of Colorado riverbed sediments in Marble and Grand Canyons 

using multibeam sonar, in Proceedings of the 5th Federal Interagency Hydrologic 

Modeling Conference and the 10th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, pp. 

1066–1077, Reno, Nev. http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJFIC/Proceedings.pdf

6. Buscombe, D., P. E. Grams, T. S. Melis, and S. M. C. Smith (2015), Large river bed 

sediment characterization with low-cost sidescan sonar: Case studies from two settings in 

the Colorado (Arizona) and Penobscot (Maine) Rivers, in Proceedings of the 5th Federal 

Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference and the 10th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, pp. 1273–1277, Reno, Nev. 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJFIC/Proceedings.pdf

7. Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., Lacy, J.R., Storlazzi, C., Hatcher, G., Chezar, H., Wyland, R. 

and Sherwood, C., 2014, Autonomous bed-sediment imaging-systems for revealing 

temporal variability of grain size. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 12, 390 - 406. 

http://www.aslo.org/lomethods/locked/2014/0390.pdf

8. Grams, P. E., D. Buscombe, D. J. Topping, J. E. J. Hazel, and M. Kaplinski (2015), Use of 

flux and morphologic sediment budgets for sandbar monitoring on the Colorado River in 

Marble Canyon, Arizona, in Proceedings of the 5th Federal Interagency Hydrologic 

Modeling Conference and the 10th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, pp. 

1144–1155, Reno, Nev. http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJFIC/Proceedings.pdf

9. Ross, R. P., and P. E. Grams (2015), Long-term monitoring of sandbars on the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon using remote sensing, in Proceedings of the 5th Federal 

Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference and the 10th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, pp. 86–96, Reno, Nev. 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJFIC/Proceedings.pdf

10. Sankey, J.B., Ralston, B.E., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Cagney, L.E., 2015, Riparian 

vegetation, Colorado River, and climate--Five decades of spatiotemporal dynamics in the 

Grand Canyon with river regulation: Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences, 

online , doi:10.1002/2015JG002991. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JG002991/full

11. Tusso, R. B., D. Buscombe, and P. E. Grams (2015), Using oblique digital photography 

for alluvial sandbar monitoring and low-cost change detection, in Proceedings of the 5th 

Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference and the 10th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, pp. 79–85, Reno, Nev. 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJFIC/Proceedings.pdf

12. Alvarez, L., Schmeeckle, M., Grams, P.E., accepted pending revision, Turbulence 

Resolving Modeling of Lateral Separation Zones along a Large Canyon-Bound River 

using Detached Eddy Simulation Technique, J. Geophysical Res. Earth Surface.

FY 2015 Presentations at Professional Meetings

13. Buscombe, D., Grams, P., 2014, Topographic and Acoustic Estimates of Grain-Scale 

Roughness from High-Resolution Multibeam Echo-Sounder: Examples from the Colorado 

River in Marble and Grand Canyons, Abstract EP44B-02 presented at 2014 Fall Meeting, 

American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 15-19 Dec.
25

14. Grams, P., Schmidt, J., Topping, D., 2014, The Role of Sediment Budgets in the 

Implementation and Evaluation of Controlled Floods to Restore Sandbars along the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, Abstract EP32A-06 presented at 2014 Fall 

Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 15-19 Dec. 

15. Mueller, E.R., Schmidt, J., Topping, D. Shafroth, P., Grams, P., 2014, Geomorphic 

response in the Limitrophe reach of the Colorado River to the 2014 delta pulse flow, 

United States and Mexico, Abstract EP32A-07 presented at 2014 Fall Meeting, American 

Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 15-19 Dec.

Planned FY 2016 Presentations at Professional Meetings

16. Alvarez, L., Schmeeckle, M., Grams, P., and Moreno, H., 2015, A Model of Turbulence, 

Sediment Transport and Morphodynamics of Lateral Separation Zones in Canyon Rivers 

using Detached Eddy Simulation Technique, Abstract EP51A-0902 presented at 2015 Fall 

Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec. 

17. Ashley, T., McElroy, B., Buscombe, D., Grams, P., Kaplinski, M., Examining the 

Relationship Between Suspended Sand Load and Bedload on the Colorado River Using 

Concurrent Measurements of Suspended Sand and Observations of Sand Dune Migration, 

Abstract EP53A-0933 presented at 2015 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union San 

Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec. 

18. Buscombe, D., Grams. P.E., (2016) Stochasticity of riverbed backscattering, with 

implications for acoustical classification of non-cohesive sediment using multibeam sonar. 

PROCEEDINGS OF RIVERFLOW 2016, THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL 

CONFERENCE ON FLUVIAL HYDRAULICS, St. Louis, Missouri, July 2016.

19. Buscombe, D., Wheaton, J., Hensleigh, J., Grams, P., Welcker, C., Anderson, K., 

Kaplinski, M., 2015, Addressing scale dependence in roughness and morphometric 

statistics derived from point cloud data, Abstract H41E-1365 presented at 2015 Fall 

Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec.

20. Chapman, K., Parnell, R., Smith, M., Grams, P., Mueller, E., 2015, Use of Composite 

Fingerprinting Technique to Determine Contribution of Paria River Sediments to DamRelease Flood Deposits in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, Abstract EP23E-03 presented 

at 2015 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec. 

21. Grams, P., Buscombe, D., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, M., Topping, D., 2015, Patterns of Channel 

and Sandbar Morphologic Response to Sediment Evacuation on the Colorado River in 

Marble Canyon, Arizona, Abstract EP33A-1035 presented at 2015 Fall Meeting, 

American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec. 

22. Hamill, D., Buscombe, D., Wheaton, J.M., Melis, T.S., Grams. P.E., (2016) Bed texture 

change detection in large rivers from repeat imaging using recreational grade sidescan 

sonar. PROCEEDINGS OF RIVERFLOW 2016, THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL 

CONFERENCE ON FLUVIAL HYDRAULICS, St. Louis, Missouri, July 2016.

23. Kaplinski, M., Buscombe, D., Ashley, T., Tusso, R., Grams, P., McElroy, B., Mueller, E., 

2015, Observations of Sand Dune Migration on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

using High-Resolution Multibeam Bathymetry, Abstract EP54B-03 presented at 2015 Fall 

Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec.

24. Mueller, E., Grams, P., Hazel, J., Schmeeckle, M., 2015, Linkages between controlled 

floods, eddy sandbar dynamics, and riparian vegetation along the Colorado River in 

Marble Canyon, Arizona, Abstract EP32A-02 presented at 2015 Fall Meeting, American 
26

Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec.

25. Rossi, R., Buscombe, D., Grams, P., Wheaton, J., 2015, From Hype to an Operational 

Tool: Efforts to Establish a Long-Term Monitoring Protocol of Alluvial Sandbars using 

‘Structure-from-Motion’ Photogrammetry, Abstract EP51B-0912 presented at 2015 Fall 

Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec. 

26. Rubin, D., Topping, D., Schmidt, J., Grams, P., Buscombe, D., East, A., Wright, S., 2015, 

Interpreting Hydraulic Conditions from Morphology, Sedimentology, and Grain Size of 

Sand Bars in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Abstract EP41D-01 presented at 2015 

Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 14-18 Dec.

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $549,700 $5,900 $46,000 $500,600 $48,000 $97,034 $1,247,234 

Actual

Spent $510,428 $6,064 $46,458 $508,051 $48,000 $91,989 $1,210,990 

(Over)/Under

Budget $39,272 ($164) ($458) ($7,451) $0 $5,045 $36,244 

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $49,600, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Project 3 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total
27

Project 4: Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum

Program Manager 

(PM) Joel Sankey Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

Joel Sankey, USGS GCMRC; 

Helen Fairley, USGS 

GCMCRC; 

Amy East, USGS PCMSC; 

Joshua Caster, USGS GCMRC 

Email jsankey@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7289

SUMMARY 

The rate and magnitude of wind transport of sand from active channel sandbars to higher elevation 

valley margins potentially affects the stability of archaeological sites and the characteristics of other 

cultural and natural resources. The degree to which valley margin areas are affected by upslope wind 

redistribution of sand is called “connectivity”. Connectivity is affected by several factors including 

the sand source as well as physical and vegetative barriers to sand transport. The primary hypothesis 

of this project is that high degrees of connectivity lead to potentially greater archaeological site 

stability.

This project is composed of two integrated elements; the first (4.1) is a research element, and the 

second (4.2) is a monitoring element. The research element (4.1) consists of two sub-elements that 

are landscape scale analyses that will examine the connectivity between attributes of the active 

channel and geomorphic processes and patterns at higher elevations (above the 45,000 ft3/s stage) at 

several temporal and geographic scales. In the monitoring element (4.2), the entire year FY15 was 

invested to develop and draft a long-term plan to monitor the geomorphic condition of 

archaeological sites in the Colorado River corridor. The monitoring plan will be implemented in 

years 2 and 3 (2016 and 2017, respectively) of the triennial work-plan effort.

The project elements and sub-elements are:

(4.1) Quantifying connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum at landscape scales

(4.1.1) Examine landscape-scale spatial variability using a combination of remote sensing 

and GIS analyses

(4.1.2) Conduct visual interpretation of historical oblique photos to assess whether 

hypothesized changes due to dam operations are supported by photographic evidence.

(4.2) Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons

Please note that there was a third sub-element (4.1.3) in Project 4 of the Triennial Work Plan which 

was not funded and therefore not pursued by GCMRC staff in FY15.

Monitoring Activities

In FY15 no formal monitoring was conducted outside of the continued operation of weather stations 

established for Project J. A three-day lidar monitoring training exercise was conducted in Glen 
28

Canyon to help transition future lidar monitoring work from contractors at external USGS science 

centers (e.g., B. Collins et al.) to GCMRC (Sankey and Caster). During this training exercise:

• Site topography was measured with terrestrial lidar at 3 archaeological sites: AZ C:02:0032, 

C:02:0075, and C:02:0077.

Weather stations continued to operate at Glen Canyon and Marble–Grand Canyon under the 

previous Project J protocol and permit from the 2013–14 biennial workplan:

• Weather data were collected at six stations, one at Ferry Swale in Glen Canyon and one at 

Lees Ferry and one each at the four Marble-Grand Canyon archaeological sites AZ 

C:05:0031, C:13:0321, B:10:0225, and G:03:0072. Stations collected measurements at 4-

minute resolution of rainfall, wind speed and direction, temperature, barometric pressure, 

and relative humidity. 

• At sites C:05:0031, C:13:0321, and B:10:0225, stationary cameras took photographs once 

per day to record qualitative information about the timing and nature of landscape change.

Overview of Weather Monitoring Data Context and Continuity

In FY15, weather conditions were monitored at select archaeological sites using six weather stations 

deployed between Ferry Swale (Glen Canyon, RM -11) and upstream of Diamond Creek (deployed 

at RM 223). The weather parameters, equipment specifications, and station configuration were 

identical to those used in previous years (2007 through 2011) and are described in multiple reports 

(Draut and others, 2009a; 2009b, Dealy and others, 2010; Caster and others, 2014). Weather data 

collected from 2007 through 2013 were made available to the public in a spreadsheet format 

following the publication of Caster and others’ (2014) open-file report. Data collected during FY15 

is being processed and will be appended to the (Caster and others, 2014) open-file report. These data 

are part of an on-going record of weather events that are being used to understand conditions leading 

to localized landscape changes at archaeological sites within the Colorado River Corridor (Draut and 

Rubin, 2008;Collins and others, 2009; 2012; 2014; in press). Supplementary photographs from 

stationary cameras in the vicinity of three of the six operational weather stations have provided 

visual evidence for the connection between recorded weather events and land surface changes. 

Prior to USGS weather monitoring efforts within the river corridor, landscape changes were 

documented and were related to weather events observed in the region (Hereford and others, 1993; 

Melis and others, 1994; Hazel and others, 2008). During FY15, daily rainfall from USGS weather 

stations in the Colorado River corridor were paired with David Topping’s rain gauge network and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s cooperative observer (NOAA COOP) stations 

to establish relationships between weather within the canyon and above the canyon rim as well as to 

synthesize a long term record of rainfall intensity within Grand and Marble canyons. The results of 

this analysis have been presented in a conference poster (Caster and others, 2014) and a USGS 

Scientific Investigations Report (SIR; Caster and Sankey, in review). The presented findings 

indicated that daily rainfall and rain intensity between the stations in the canyon were similar, but 

stations in western Grand Canyon tended to receive statistically more rainfall in the late fall through 

winter seasons. Caster and Sankey’s (in review) SIR also appeared to corroborate Collins and 

other’s (in press) work on minimal rainfall runoff thresholds, which provide useful criteria for 

identifying potential erosion-inducing storm events within the observed and synthesized record 

developed for the SIR (Caster and Sankey, in review). The results of both of these reports are 
29

significant for our understanding of the relative influences of weather vs. dam operations on 

geomorphic surface changes observed at archaeological sites. The proposed continual monitoring of 

weather will be instrumental in refining these results and assessing how future management 

practices affect river corridor terrestrial resources.

Summary of Reports and Products

In the FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan (TWP), Project 4 stated intentions to complete the following 

reports and publications from our work during 2015:

1. Technical paper (and conference presentation): Preliminary findings of the geospatial 

analysis of 4.1 will be published in a technical paper and presented at the SEDHYD 

conference in April 2015. Sankey lead.

2. Peer-reviewed manuscript (and conference presentation): The utility of site specific weather 

monitoring data for understanding landscape scale processes that are analyzed in 4.1 and 4.2 

will be presented at AGU and then will be developed into a publication. Caster will lead.

3. Monitoring plan will be written and reviewed by stakeholders.

4. Annual report on the progress of the project with relevant results, maps, and graphics will be 

prepared for stakeholders.

Number one was accomplished in the conference presentation and proceedings publication by 

Sankey et al. for the 2015 SEDHYD/FISC conference. Number 2 was accomplished by the AGU 

presentation by Caster and subsequent USGS Scientific Investigations Report that is now in review 

by Caster and Sankey. Number 3 was accomplished by the entire project team and is described in 

detail in the project 4.2 accomplishments section of this report. Number 4 is this annual report.

An additional very important report was completed in FY15. It was led by Amy East with coauthors who comprise the rest of the Project 4 and (previous) Project J science teams. The report is 

the USGS Professional Paper “Conditions and processes affecting sand resources at archaeological 

sites in the Colorado River Corridor below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona”. This report has completed 

peer and department review and is being processed by the USGS editorial staff.

Summary of Project Funds Expenditure

In FY15, we spent $33,390 less on salaries than planned, because scientists on the project were 

successful in receiving additional external grant funding to support research. We spent almost all of 

the $9,000 planned for travel to attend conferences and meetings where we gave presentations, as 

well as to do some fieldwork. We planned $10,000 in operating expenses and spent $19,000 more 

than planned. This extra expenditure was largely due to the purchase of lidar data processing 

software (ISITE software by the company MAPTEK; $23,340). The software purchase was planned 

for FY16, and we decided that because we had realized savings in salaries in FY15 to go ahead and 

purchase the software this year so that we could begin using it right away. We spent $16,160 less 

than planned to fund our USGS cooperator Amy East. Amy received some additional salary from 

her own USGS science center this year and reduced the amount she had asked from us accordingly. 

Overall, we spent $37,252 less than planned during FY15 which we will carry over to FY16. We 

worked throughout FY15 to identify ways in which we could realize some carryover for FY16 

because of the projected shortfalls in FY16 and FY17. The carryover will be used to cover those 
30

projected shortfalls.

Summary of Progress in Individual Project Elements (FY15 work):

Project Element 4.1. Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum

Project 4.1 proposes to quantify relationships between the distribution of sand within the active river 

channel and the distribution of higher elevation river-derived (“aeolian”) sand to identify what 

environmental factors related to dam operations control the location and size of aeolian sand 

deposits that are found above the maximum controlled flood stage.

Sub-element 4.1.1 (Joshua Caster and Joel Sankey)

The sub-element 4.1.1 investigation focused on identifying statistical relationships between (1) the 

distribution of active and inactive (with respect to aeolian transport) areas of river-derived sand 

(RDS; units mapped by Amy Draut East during FY12/FY13) above the active river channel, and (2) 

the distribution of remotely mapped sand, vegetation, and topographic characteristics within and 

above the controlled flood stage. In FY15 we completed a great deal of GIS and statistical analyses 

to characterize these relationships for the remotely mapped characteristics of the 2009 overflight 

data and for the six project “j” reaches (i.e., project J of FY13 and FY14).

Below is a summary of the key preliminary interpretations and resulting hypotheses from spatial and 

statistical analyses to-date for this part of the 3 year workplan. The summary below has been divided 

into five sections. Section 1 presents the key results of analyses of the distribution of RDS above the 

maximum regulated flood stage (45,000 cfs). Sections 2 and 3 present the results of analysis of sand, 

vegetation, and topographic characteristics below the maximum flood stage that are hypothesized to 

have a relationship to the distribution of RDS above 45,000 cfs. Section 4 summarizes the 

conceptual model of the most important landscape characteristics believed to affect RDS distribution 

(derived from the synthesis of analyses conducted in the first three sections). Section 5 presents the 

potential implications of these analyses. The following sections are preliminary interpretations and 

hypotheses – and should be considered as such – that will be further investigated during FY16 and 

FY17 before being published in a peer-reviewed format.

Section 1: Spatial Distribution of River-Derived Sand

• River-derived sand (RDS) units within the river corridor of six study reaches are located 

within 400 meters of the shoreline inundated by the active river channel maximum elevation 

(45,000 CFS discharge shoreline)

• Each reach has a different distribution of RDS, however, on average RDS active units are 

located two times closer to the active river channel compared to RDS inactive units (within 

150 meters vs. 300 meters on average from the active river channel, respectively).

Section 2: Differences below the Active Channel Elevation Associated with River-Derived Sand

• There is significantly more mapped channel vegetation (MCV) within the active river 

channel (below 45,000 CFS shoreline) in the vicinity of inactive RDS units compared to 

active RDS units.

• The mean slope and standard deviation of slope (topographic roughness) within the active 

river channel are significantly greater for inactive RDS units than for active RDS units.

• There is significantly more mapped channel fluvial sand (MCS) area than mapped channel 

vegetation (MCV) within the active river channel in the vicinity of active RDS units. MCS 
31

area was nearly two times greater than the area of MCV for most distance and flow elevation 

intervals below active RDS units.

• Consideration of dominant wind direction does not appear to explain differences between 

RDS units. In general, statistical relationships are not appreciably stronger when wind 

direction is considered.

Section 3: Predicting River-Derived Sand Unit Area with Associated Active Channel Elevation 

Features

• The best predictive models for river-derived sand (RDS) unit area incorporated predictor 

variables derived from topographic slope and the area inundated by river flows of specific 

magnitude:

o To predict RDS active unit area, the best models used mapped channel vegetation 

area within 40 meters of an RDS active unit, area inundated between the 41,000 and 

45,000 cfs flow elevations, standard deviation of slope within 10 meters of the active 

channel elevation (45,000 cfs), and mean slope between the minimum flow elevation 

(8,000 cfs) and 20,000 cfs flow elevation.

o To predict RDS inactive unit area, the best models used mapped channel vegetation 

area within 40 meters of an RDS inactive unit, remotely mapped vegetation between 

the active channel elevation (45,000 cfs) and 97,000 cfs flow elevation, and mean and 

standard deviation of slope between the 41,000 cfs and 45,000 cfs flow elevations.

Section 4: Hypotheses Developed from Analyses

• Using the results of the statistical analyses (in sections 1-3), a preliminary conceptual model 

was developed to explain the distribution and relative abundance of river-derived sand 

(RDS) units. The model suggests that:

1. River corridor sections with greater area inundated by flows between 8,000 

cfs and 45,000 cfs have greater RDS unit area.

2. River corridor sections with low angle and topographically smooth slopes 

between 8,000 cfs and 20,000 cfs flow elevations and between 41,000 cfs and 

45,000 cfs flow elevations have greater RDS unit area.

3. River corridor sections with more mapped channel sand (MCS) than mapped 

channel vegetation (MCV) have greater RDS active unit area.

4. River corridor sections with topographic conditions that promote continued 

up-slope wind-blown sand transport have greater RDS unit area than sections 

with topographic conditions that promote wind-blown sand transport parallel 

to the active channel.

5. For RDS area that is located directly adjacent to the active channel maximum 

elevation (45,000 cfs), fluvially sourced sand may contribute to RDS unit 

volume regardless of the dominant wind direction. Wind direction might play 

a more important role in the up-slope transport for RDS units located further 

away from the active river channel.

• Some analyses of the conceptual model hypotheses have been completed using comparisons 

of historical aerial photography (2009 and 1965 – shortly following dam construction) with 

overlays of RDS units. Observations from comparing recent imagery with the 1965 imagery 

suggest that:

1. No one river corridor segment or reach fit within all five ideal model 

parameters (hypotheses).

2. Area of RDS deposits that are located adjacent to areas that have high ratios 
32

of MCS to MCV (> 1.9:1) were not necessarily larger and did not always 

consistently show evidence of greater area of active RDS in the present or in 

1965.

3. In general, there were not a lot of examples of RDS inactive units that 

appeared to have been a great deal more active in 1965.

Section 5: Some specific implications of the analyses that we want to investigate further in FY16 

and FY17 

• For areas with a close association to the active river channel and a fluvial sand source, 

dominant wind direction may not necessarily be a significant limiting factor to sand transport 

if topographic and vegetative conditions are right. Dominant wind direction may be a more 

significant factor in limiting sand transport the further from the active channel elevation a 

location may be.

• Because RDS active units tend to be located upslope of shorelines that have more MCS than 

MCV area, we preliminarily hypothesize that vegetation removal might be a viable means to 

promote up-slope wind transport in certain locations where an adjacent fluvial sand source 

exists, and:

1. RDS active units exist and are upslope of shorelines with MCS area less than 

or equal to MCV area, or

2. RDS inactive units exist with one or more of the five characteristics described 

within the conceptual model, or

3. RDS inactive units exist that show evidence of possible greater activity in the 

1965 aerial imagery

Sub-element 4.1.2 (Helen Fairley)

In sub-element 1.2., we are analyzing historical oblique photographs to ascertain the degree to which 

environmental conditions at or near cultural sites have changed during the past > 50 years by 

comparing conditions in areas that appear to have functioned as aeolian landscapes in the past 

compared to current conditions. This work involves visual comparisons of historical oblique 

imagery and current surface conditions (e.g., visual evaluations of more or less soil crust, vegetation 

cover, etc.). Historical photos are being examined and qualitatively assessed in terms of whether the 

historical imagery shows more or less open sand bars, cryptobiotic crust cover, and vegetation cover 

within areas that appear to have served as aeolian source areas to cultural sites and within specific 

cultural site locations. The current state of the cultural sites and aeolian sand areas are being 

similarly assessed based on more recent site photos as well as recent site descriptions (e.g., from site 

investigation work completed in 2013 and 2014). One anticipated outcome of this analysis will be an 

estimate of the proportion of cultural sites for which the potential influence of aeolian sand inputs 

has changed from pre-dam to recent post-dam time, relative to changes in environmental 

characteristics including vegetation and biologic crusts.

In FY15, initial efforts focused on locating and assessing the suitability of existing historical photo 

collections for this analysis effort. As described for Project 12, where a similar type of analysis is 

being carried out to assess changes in vegetation species important to tribes, an assessment of the 

historical Desert Laboratory’s repeat photography collection revealed that only the Stanton

collection was sufficiently well-documented with repeat photographic matches and sufficiently wellorganized to allow for the analysis to proceed without having to conduct considerable pre-analysis 

preparation work; therefore, the analysis conducted to date has focused exclusively on the Stanton 
33

photographic collection and the matches obtained by Dr. Robert Webb and colleagues in 1990–1992 

and in 2010–2011. (Although we also planned to match photographs collected by the 1923 Birdseye 

expedition as part of this project, this work had to be postponed due to the cancellation of the 

August vegetation monitoring trip following the tragic death of our colleague Daniel Sarr.) As of the 

end of September, 2015, approximately 28% of the Stanton collection (representing approximately 

1/3 of the river corridor) had been analyzed, covering 128 individual views and 256 matched images 

collected between the base of Glen Canyon Dam and the Little Colorado River confluence area. 

While still a work in progress, the analysis completed to date shows that aeolian source areas have 

diminished significantly during the past 120 years, in terms of two factors: 1) change in the size 

(volume) and abundance of sand bars, and 2) dramatic increase in the amount of riparian vegetation 

cover below the old high water line. With regard to the second factor, the photographs show that the 

amount of vegetation cover increased dramatically between 1889–1890 and 1990–1992 in the 

formerly active river channel below the mesquite line; more surprising perhaps is that the matched 

photographs from the 1990s and 2010–2011 show a significant increase in lower elevation riparian 

vegetation, with almost every photograph from 2010–2011 showing increases of dense shrubby 

vegetation (especially Baccharis sp. and Salix exigua) infilling what was formerly—in the early 

1990s—open or partially open sand bars and sandy shorelines. It remains to be seen whether this 

same pattern holds up in the central and western reaches of Grand Canyon.

Project Element 4.2. Monitoring – plan development (Entire Project 4 Team)

The primary objective for Project Element 4.2 in FY15 was to draft a monitoring plan in response to 

stakeholders’ request for establishing a long-term, systematic strategy for assessing effects of dam 

operations on archaeological sites due to flow and non-flow actions. The purpose of this document 

was to provide a means for collecting information useful in Reclamation’s effort to maintain 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance under the Long Term Experimental and 

Management Plan (LTEMP). The proposed draft monitoring plan is designed to address specific 

target points outlined by BOR and NPS that were summarized in the Project 4 proposal of the 

Triennial Work Plan (M. Barger, email communication, May 19 2014, to J. Sankey; J. Balsom, 

email communication, July 7, 2014, to J. Schmidt, H. Fairley, G. Knowles). As NPS archaeologists 

and Tribal representatives monitor cultural resource site integrity, the proposed draft plan focuses on 

strategies for quantitative assessment of effects of geomorphic processes associated with dam 

operation on archaeological site condition. One important focus of the plan is to monitor whether, 

and how much, HFE sand is transported by wind to a representative sample of archaeological sites 

and what effect wind-transported sand has on surface stability.

Work towards the development of this monitoring plan began in October, 2014 with a review of 

federal monitoring programs in-place at Grand Canyon as well as around the United States by 

GCMRC project staff. Following inner-department dialogue, drafting of the plan began in 

November, 2014 and continued through June, 2015, when NPS and BOR collaborators provided 

initial inter-agency comments. During July, 2015, GCMRC, NPS, and BOR team members met to 

discuss comments and revisions and it was decided that the plan had reached a stage sufficient for 

review by all stakeholders. On August 21, 2015 GCMRC project staff hosted a meeting for all 

stakeholders to provide comments and suggestions for the draft monitoring plan. Following this 

meeting, revisions were made to the draft monitoring plan based on stakeholder input and were resubmitted for review to all parties on October 8, 2015. GCMRC received written comments on 

October 30, 2015 and is currently revising and finalizing the monitoring plan.
34

Implementation of the finalized monitoring plan was proposed for FY16 and FY17 in the Triennial 

Work Plan. To increase efficiency and maintain the proposed monitoring schedule, efforts were 

made by GCMRC project staff to refine these monitoring strategies prior to implementation. During 

April, 2015 initial tests of a newly acquired terrestrial lidar unit, owned by GCMRC, were 

conducted at three sites within Glen Canyon. Following data collection, advanced geographic 

information system (GIS) analysis of these data was conducted and a formal procedure for data 

collection, processing, and storage was established. Discussions on the extent of monitoring are ongoing, but it is believed that implementation for the draft plan will be on schedule.

References

Caster, J., and Sankey, J. B., in review, Variability in rainfall at monitoring stations and derivation 

of a long-term rainfall intensity record in the Grand Canyon Region, Arizona, USA, U.S.. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015-XXX, 56 p.

Caster, J., Sankey, J. B.., Draut, A., Fairley, H., Collins, B., and Bedford, D., 2014, Dryland 

precipitation variability and desertification processes: An assessment of spatial and temporal rain

variability within the Grand Canyon, Arizona, American Geophysical Union abstracts with 

programs H51E-0656

Caster, J., Dealy, T., Andrews, T, Fairley, H., Draut, A., and Sankey, J., 2014, Meteorological data 

for selected sites along the Colorado River Corridor, Arizona, 2011–13: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2014-1247, 56 p.

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009, Topographic change detection at select 

archeological sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006–2007: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5116, 58 p.,

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S.C., Fairley, H.C., Minasian, D., Kayen, R., Dealy, T.P., and Bedford, D.R., 

2012, Topographic change detection at select archeological sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, 2007–2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5133, 77 p.

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S.C., Sankey, J.B., and Fairley, H.C., 2014, High-Resolution Topography 

and Geomorphology of Select Archeological Sites in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5126, 31 p.

Collins, B.D., Bedford, D., Corbett, S.C., Cronkite-Ratcliff, C., and Fairley, H.C., in press, 

Meteorologic and anthropogenic effects on archeological site change in Grand Canyon, Arizona: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

Dealy, T.P., Draut, A.E., and Fairley, H.C., 2014, 2010 weather and aeolian sand-transport data 

from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2014- 1135, 90 p.

Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009a, 2007 weather and aeolian 

sandtransport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2009-1095, 110 p.

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., Brown, C.R., and 

Vanaman, K.M., 2009b, 2008 weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River 

corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1190, 98 p

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of archeologic 

sites along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1756, 71 p.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R.A., and Fairley, H.C., 2008, Aggradation and degradation 
35

of the Palisades gully network, 1996 to 2005, with emphasis on the November 2004 high-flow 

experiment, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2008-1264, 14 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: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-

517, 46 p.

Melis, T.S., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., and Wise, T.J., 1994, Magnitude and frequency data for 

historic debris flows in Grand Canyon National Park and vicinity, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4214, 285 p.
36

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

USGS SIR

Variability in rainfall at 

monitoring stations and 

derivation of a long-term 

rainfall intensity record in 

the Grand Canyon Region, 

Arizona, USA

N/A 5/11/15 TBD

This report has 

completed peer and 

department review 

and is being 

processed by the 

USGS editorial staff

USGS 

Professiona

l Paper

Conditions and processes 

affecting sand resources at 

archaeological sites in the 

Colorado River Corridor 

below Glen Canyon Dam, 

Arizona

N/A 6/9/15 TBD

This report has 

completed peer and 

department review 

and is being 

processed by the 

USGS editorial staff

Poster 

Presentatio

n

When it Rains it Pours: 

Implications of weather 

monitoring results for 

rainfall runoff at 

archaeological sites in 

Glen, Marble and Grand 

Canyons

1/21/14 1/5/14 1/21/14

This poster was 

presented at the 

January Annual 

Reporting Meeting in 

Phoenix, AZ

Poster 

Presentatio

n

Dryland precipitation 

variability and 

desertification processes: 

An assessment of spatial 

and temporal rain 

variability within the 

Grand Canyon, Arizona

12/19/1

4 10/03/14 12/19/14

This poster was 

presented at the fall 

AGU meeting in San 

Francisco, CA

Oral 

Presentatio

n

Gully annealing by 

fluvially-sourced aeolian 

sand: Remote sensing 

investigations of 

connectivity along the 

fluvial-aeolian-hillslope 

continuum on the 

Colorado River

1/1/15 12/22/15 4/21/15

This conference 

presentation was 

presented at the 

Federal Interagency 

Sedementation and 

Hydrologic Modeling 

joint conference in 

Reno, NV

Proceedings 

Paper

Gully annealing by 

fluvially-sourced aeolian 

sand: Remote sensing 

investigations of 

1/1/15 12/22/15 1/28/15

This was published in 

the proceedings of the 

Federal Interagency 

Sedementation and 
37

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

connectivity along the 

fluvial-aeolian-hillslope 

continuum on the 

Colorado River

Hydrologic Modeling 

joint conference in 

Reno, NV

Oral 

Presentatio

n

Designing a monitoring 

program to inform 

adaptive management of 

cultural resources in the 

context of a changing 

climate: an example from 

Glen and Grand Canyons, 

Arizona.

10/8/15 7/1/15 10/8/15

This was presented at 

the 13th Biennial 

Conference of 

Science & 

Management on the 

Colorado Plateau in 

Flagstaff, AZ

Poster 

Presentatio

n

A landscape-scale 

assessment of 

archaeological-site 

condition and 

preservation in the 

Colorado River Corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona

11/3/15 7/30/15 11/3/15

This poster was 

presented at the 

annual GSA meeting 

in Baltimore, MD

Poster 

Presentatio

n

A landscape-scale 

assessment of 

archaeological-site 

condition and 

preservation in the 

Colorado River Corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona

11/3/15 7/30/15 11/3/15

This poster was 

presented at the 

annual GSA meeting 

in Baltimore, MD

Oral 

Presentatio

n

Sand resources and 

monitoring at 

archaeological sites in 

Glen and Grand Canyons

2/27/15 2/27/15 2/27/15 HFE workshop oral 

presentation

Oral 

Presentatio

n

Project J Summary: 

Conditions and processes 

affecting sand resources at 

archaeological sites

1/20/15 1/20/15 1/20/15

2014 Annual 

Reporting Meeting 

presentation
38

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $197,800 $9,000 $10,000 $0 $84,900 $29,556 $331,256 

Actual

Spent $164,410 $8,438 $29,212 $0 $68,740 $27,547 $298,348 

(Over)/Under

Budget $33,390 $562 ($19,212) $0 $16,160 $2,009 $32,908 

To other

USGS Centers Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $37,200, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Purchased I-Site Studio software in FY15 rather than FY16.

Project 4 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements
39

Project 5: Foodbase Monitoring and Research

Program Manager 

(PM) Theodore Kennedy Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

Theodore Kennedy, USGS, 

GCMRC

Jeff Muehlbauer, USGS, 

GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, USGS, 

GCMRC

Scott Miller, BLM/USU

David Lytle, OSU

Scott Wright, USGS, CWSC

Mike Yard, USGS, GCMRC

Email tkennedy@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7374

SUMMARY 

In FY15, the foodbase group: 1) continued monthly monitoring of invertebrate drift, insect 

emergence and algae production in Glen Canyon, 2) we collaborated with the Natal Origins project 

to collect invertebrate drift samples during each of their quarterly sampling trips, 3) we conducted 

nearly continuous monitoring of insect emergence in Marble and Grand Canyon in collaboration 

with citizen scientists, 4) we compiled and began analyzing existing data on the aquatic foodbase in 

tailwaters throughout the western US, 5) we collected drift and benthic invertebrate data from 7 

tailwaters in the Colorado River basin, 6) we initiated citizen science monitoring in targeted 

segments of the upper Colorado River basin, and 7) conducted pilot studies on egg-laying locations 

of aquatic insects in Glen Canyon. Significant progress was also made in analyzing and interpreting 

these data, with six different manuscripts that incorporate foodbase data being submitted and 

accepted for publication in FY15 (see products, below). 

Monthly monitoring of drift and emergence in Glen Canyon in FY15 demonstrated that prey 

availability varies seasonally, with prey availability being relatively high in April, May, and June, 

and considerably lower during other months of the year. Overall, prey size was always small with 

average lengths between 3-5 millimeters. Long-term drift monitoring data from Glen Canyon 

spanning five years (2009–2013) were incorporated into a trout bioenergetics model that 

demonstrated prey availability and prey size limit the maximum size of rainbow trout in Glen 

Canyon (see Dodrill manuscript in press). Additionally, invertebrate drift data from Natal Origins 

sites demonstrate that prey availability is playing a role in controlling trout growth rates among sites 

and seasons (see Yard manuscript in press). A total of 154 invertebrate drift samples, 3000 sticky 

trap samples, 52 benthic invertebrate samples, and 230 fish gut samples were processed by the 

foodbase lab in FY15. 

Algae production data from Grand Canyon were synthesized in a journal article that was published 

in FY15. Similar to prior investigations into algae production, we found that turbidity and light were 

the dominant control of algae production. But our analyses of continuous algae production estimates 

derived from dissolved oxygen monitoring also revealed that cloudy days had a measurable impact 
40

on algae production by reducing ambient light. Our analyses also showed that water temperature and 

hydropeaking had a measurable but comparatively minor role in controlling algae production in 

Marble and Grand Canyons (see article by Hall and others). In FY15, Yackulic also participated in 

one workshop with a USGS Powell Center working group on developing new approaches for 

modeling and analyzing dissolved oxygen data. These efforts will inform approaches for modeling 

dissolved oxygen monitoring data that are being collected in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons.

In FY15, we continued collaborating with professional river guides as part of a citizen science 

project to monitor the emergence of aquatic insects from Marble and Grand Canyons. Because the 

river guiding season runs from April through October, this citizen science project allows us to 

quantify insect emergence during much of the growing season. By working with several companies 

that outfit private boaters for rafting trips, we were also able to extend the coverage of our citizen 

science efforts in FY15 to include months when professional river guides are not present (i.e., 

February, March, November, and December). A total of 1,300 light trap samples were processed by 

the foodbase lab in FY15. 

Pilot studies on the egg-laying locations of aquatic insects were conducted in Glen Canyon by the 

foodbase group, and both egg-laying and egg mortality experiments were conducted by Scott Miller 

(Utah State University) in the Flaming Gorge tailwater, which has a more diverse assemblage of 

aquatic insects than are present in Glen Canyon. These preliminary investigations demonstrate that 

many types of aquatic insects lay their eggs at or along river shorelines. Additionally, the egg 

mortality study conducted by Miller demonstrated that even short-term desiccation (i.e, 4 hours) 

caused almost 100% mortality of aquatic insect eggs. Collectively, these studies on the preferred 

egg-laying locations of aquatic insects and the effect of desiccation on mortality of insect eggs are 

consistent with the hypothesis put forward in the triennial workplan that daily hydropeaking may be 

an important control of aquatic insect production and diversity.

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date Date Delivered Date Expected Citations/Comments

Journa

l 

article

Mercury and 

selenium 

accumulation in 

the Colorado River 

food web, Grand 

Canyon, USA.

Walters, D.M., E. RosiMarshall, T.A. Kennedy, 

W.F. Cross, and C.V. 

Baxter. 2015. “Mercury 

and selenium 

accumulation in the 

Colorado River food 

web, Grand Canyon, 

USA.” Environmental 

Toxicology and 

Chemistry 34, no. 10 

(2015): 2385-2394.
41

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date Date Delivered Date Expected Citations/Comments

Journa

l 

article

Turbidity, light, 

temperature, and 

hydropeaking

control primary 

productivity in the 

Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon

Hall, R.O., C.B. 

Yackulic, T.A. Kennedy, 

M.D. Yard, E.J. Rosi‐

Marshall, N. Voichick, 

and K.E. Behn. 

"Turbidity, light, 

temperature, and 

hydropeaking control 

primary productivity in 

the Colorado River, 

Grand 

Canyon." Limnology and 

Oceanography 60, no. 2 

(2015): 512-526. 

Journa

l 

article

Flow management 

and fish density 

regulate salmonid 

recruitment and 

adult size in 

tailwaters across 

western North 

America.

Dibble, K. L., C. 

B.Yackulic, T. A. 

Kennedy, and P. Budy. 

In press "Flow 

management and fish 

density regulate 

salmonid recruitment 

and adult size in 

tailwaters across western 

North 

America."Ecological 

Applications (2015).

Journa

l 

article

Evaluating 

potential sources 

of variation 

affecting 

Chironomidae 

catch rates on 

sticky traps

Smith, J., J Muehlbauer, 

and T Kennedy, in press, 

“Evaluating potential 

sources of variation 

affecting Chironomidae

catch rates on sticky 

traps.” Marine and 

Freshwater Research

Journa

l Seasonal and 

Yard, M.D., J Korman, 

C Walters, and T 
42

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date Date Delivered Date Expected Citations/Comments

article spatial patterns of 

growth of rainbow 

trout in the 

Colorado river in 

Grand Canyon AZ. 

Kennedy In press, 

Seasonal and spatial 

patterns of growth of 

rainbow trout in the 

Colorado river in Grand 

Canyon AZ. Canadian 

journal of fisheries and 

aquatic sciences.

Journa

l 

article

Prey size and 

availability limit 

maximum size of 

rainbow trout in a 

large tailwater:

insights from a 

drift-foraging 

bioenergetics 

model.

Dodrill, M., C Yackulic, 

T Kennedy, and J Hayes, 

In press, “Prey size and 

availability limit 

maximum size of 

rainbow trout in a large 

tailwater: insights from a 

drift-foraging 

bioenergetics model.” 

Canadian journal of 

fisheries and aquatic 

sciences

Outrea

ch 

Article

Moth mystery hour March 2015

Metcalfe, A., T.A. 

Kennedy, and C. 

Fritzinger. “Moth 

mystery hour.” 

Boatman’s quarterly 

review 28 no. 2 (2015): 

15-16.

Presen

tation

Big flood, small 

flood, spring flood, 

fall flood: how 

controlled flood 

timing affects food 

web response in 

the Glen Canyon 

Dam tailwater

May 2015

Kennedy, TA, J. 

Muehlbauer, M. Dodrill, 

A. Copp, M. Yard, May 

2015. “Big flood, small 

flood, spring flood, fall 

flood: how controlled 

flood timing affects food 

web response in the 

Glen Canyon Dam 

tailwater.” Annual 

meeting of the Society 

for Freshwater Science, 

Milwaukee, WI
43

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date Date Delivered Date Expected Citations/Comments

Presen

tation

Little bugs, big 

data, and Grand 

Canyon: light 

trapping by citizen 

scientists yields 

insights into 

Colorado River 

aquatic insect 

dynamics.

August 2015

Kennedy, TA, J. 

Muehlbauer, D. Lytle, 

C. Yackulic, E. 

Kortenhoeven, A. 

Metcalfe, August 2015. 

“Little bugs, big data, 

and Grand Canyon: light 

trapping by citizen 

scientists yields insights 

into Colorado River 

aquatic insect 

dynamics.” 4th Biennial 

Meeting of International 

Society for River 

Science, LaCrosse, WI 

Presen

tations

There is more than 

one way to shade a 

river: contrasting 

effects of canyon 

orientation and 

water clarity on 

aquatic 

invertebrate 

densities

August 2015

Muehlbauer, J.D., TA 

Kennedy, E.W. 

Kortenhoeven, and 

J.T.Smith, August 2015. 

“There is more than one 

way to shade a river: 

contrasting effects of 

canyon orientation and 

water clarity on aquatic 

invertebrate densities.” 

Annual meeting of the 

Ecological Society of 

America, Baltimore, 

MD. 

Presen

tations

Hg and Se 

accumulation in 

the Colorado River 

food web.

June 2015

Walters, D.W. and T.A. 

Kennedy, June 22, 2015. 

“Hg and Se 

accumulation in the 

Colorado River food 

web.” Briefing for the 

Assistant Secretary for 

Water and Science, and 

leadership from Bureau 

of Reclamation and 

National Park Service
44

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date Date Delivered Date Expected Citations/Comments

Presen

tations

Hg and Se 

accumulation in 

the Colorado River 

food web

July 2015

Walters, DW and TA 

kennedy, July 6, 2015, 

“Hg and Se 

accumulation in the 

Colorado River food 

web.” Briefing for 

Grand Canyon National 

Park staff.

Presen

tations

Hg and Se 

accumulation in 

the Colorado River 

food web.

July 2015

Walters, DW and TA 

Kennedy, July 9, 2015. 

“Hg and Se 

accumulation in the 

Colorado River food 

web.” Briefing for 

Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, 

Arizona Department of 

Game and Fish, and 

Bureau of Reclamation 

staff.

Long-term drift 

monitoring reveals 

changes in 

foodbase since 

2008 flood

January 2015

Kennedy, T.A., M. 

Dodrill, A. Copp, and J. 

Muehlbauer, January 

2015. “Long-term drift 

monitoring reveals 

changes in foodbase 

since 2008 flood.” 

Annual reporting 

meeting, Technical 

Work Group, Phoenix, 

AZ.

Lees Ferry 

foodbase: status, 

trends, and next 

steps.

February 2015

Kennedy, T.A., February 

2015. “Lees Ferry 

foodbase: status, trends, 

and next steps.” Trout 

unlimited, Grand 

Canyon chapter, 

Northern Arizona 

Flycasters joint meeting, 

Flagstaff, AZ. 
45

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date Date Delivered Date Expected Citations/Comments

Foodbase response 

to three High Flow 

Experiments.

February 2015

Kennedy,T.A. February, 

2015. “Foodbase 

response to three High 

Flow Experiments.” 

Adaptive Management 

Work Group, HFE 

workshop, Salt Lake 

City, UT.

Citizen science 

light trapping 

results: an 

emerging story 

about bugs and 

river management.

March 2015

Kennedy,T.A., E. 

Kortenhoeven, A. 

Metcalfe, March 2015. 

“Citizen science light 

trapping results: an 

emerging story about 

bugs and river 

management.” Guides 

training seminar, Marble 

Canyon, AZ.

Where have the 

mayflies gone? May 2015

Kennedy, TA, May 

2015. “Where have the 

mayflies gone?” Lees 

Ferry trout fishery 

meeting, convened by 

AZGFD and TRCF, 

Marble Canyon, AZ.

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $339,000 $12,300 $20,600 $36,100 $18,800 $51,784 $478,584 

Actual

Spent $333,006 $15,182 $22,298 $25,086 $18,152 $51,261 $464,985 

(Over)/Under

Budget $5,994 ($2,882) ($1,698) $11,014 $648 $523 $13,599 

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $21,600.

Project 5 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total
46

Project 6: Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub Aggregations and Fish Community 

Dynamics

Program Manager 

(PM) David Ward Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

David Ward, USGS, GCMRC

Mike Dodrill, USGS, GCMRC

Luke Avery, USGS, GCMRC

Brian Healy, NPS

Kirk Young, USFWS

Randy VanHaverbeke, 

USFWS

David Rogowski, AZGFD

Karin Limburg, State Uni. Of 

NY.

Email dlward@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7280

SUMMARY 

Project Element 6.1. Monitoring humpback chub aggregation relative abundance and 

distribution

Mainstem fish sampling was conducted in September of 2015, in cooperation with the USFWS and 

AZGFD. During this trip, we sampled both within and outside of defined humpback chub 

aggregations in order to characterize the fish community with emphasis on humpback chub. 

Multiple gear types including hoop netting, electrofishing, and seining were used in order to capture 

adult, sub-adult, and juvenile humpback chub. While only preliminary information is available for 

hoop netting and electrofishing at this time, we can more fully report on the catches from seining. 

Backwater and mainstem beach faces were sampled with seines wherever feasible from Lees Ferry 

to Pearce Ferry. This approach proved very effective at capturing small bodied native fish including 

humpback chub, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, and speckled dace. A variety of nonnative 

fish were also captured including rainbow trout, fathead minnows, channel catfish, common carp, 

red shiner, and plains killifish. Approximately 3500 fish were captured including 210 humpback 

chub ranging in size from 26 mm to 371 mm total length. Humpback chub were captured across a 

large spatial extent including in Western Grand Canyon. A tablet computer with an automated data 

entry GUI was used in the field to record the seine data. This expedited the fish processing, allowing 

more information to be collected during the trip.

Project Element 6.2. Humpback chub aggregation recruitment studies

This Project element seeks to increase our understanding of humpback chub recruitment dynamics at 

wide-spread locations within the mainstem Colorado River using a variety of techniques including 

otolith microchemistry and traditional sampling techniques. Building on prior studies of water 

chemistry and otolith microchemistry of juvenile humpback chub, we collected water samples 

throughout the mainstem Colorado River and tributaries in order to identify isotopic or chemical 

signatures that may be used to identify areas of humpback chub spawning and recruitment. Although 
47

we did not deliberately take any humpback chub for otolith microchemistry, a small number of 

incidental mortalities, along with surrogate species, are available. These samples have been sent to 

Karin Limburg (State University of New York) for analysis. We continue to work with cooperators, 

such as the NPS, to collect and preserve any incidental mortalities that could contribute to this work. 

Additionally, We collected ultrasound images of humpback chub to determine if they develop eggs 

in the mainstem Colorado River. Female humpback chub with eggs were observed in ultrasound 

images at several mainstem locations. The ultrasound image collection is part of a thesis being 

developed by Morgan Brizendine (University of Arizona), with a peer-reviewed publication 

expected after completion of the thesis, documenting these findings. 

Project Element 6.3. Monitoring mainstem humpback chub aggregations using PIT-tag 

antenna technology

We deployed 7 portable PIT tag antennas at each sampling site during the Sept 2015 sampling trip to 

monitor humpback chub at known aggregations. These antennas detected humpback chub, 

flannelmouth sucker, and other PIT tagged species. The antennas represent an additional source of 

information on PIT tagged species and an exciting new area of study to increase our understanding 

of native fish distribution and ecology. Genetic samples (small fin clips) were collected from 

humpback chub in order to support research by Wade Wilson (USFWS). Understanding the genetic 

make-up of fish in mainstem aggregations will provide information on relatedness and possibly 

identify areas of likely recruitment. Overall, the variety of sampling strategies and gears we used 

provides timely information on the status of fish populations and informs decisions on both the 

operation of Glen Canyon Dan and non-flow actions. 

Project Element 6.4. System Wide Electrofishing

Goals and Objectives: The primary goal of the “System Wide Electrofishing” program is to 

monitor the status and trends of native and nonnative fish that occur in the Colorado River 

ecosystem via boat electrofishing from Lees Ferry to Lake Mead. Lees Ferry monitoring (Glen 

Canyon dam to Lees Ferry) is discussed in a different subsection below . The purpose of this 

program is to obtain a representative sample of the fish community within the Colorado River. 

Results (species composition and relative abundance measured as catch per unit effort (CPUE)) 

from our surveys can be used to interpret trends in abundance and distribution of native and 

nonnative fish within this reach.

Summary of progress:

In 2015 we completed three mainstem sampling trips. A stratified random sampling approach was 

used to obtain a representative sample of the river’s fish community that is susceptible to 

electrofishing. Catfish are generally not sampled adequately using electrofishing, thus angling is 

used to capture catfish. Similarly Humpback Chub are also not very amenable to electrofishing, and 

as other project elements monitor Humpback Chub, this project does not address Humpback Chub 

distribution and abundance. In the two spring/summer system wide trips 593 sites were sampled 

with 3709 fish captured. During the fall sampling trip from Diamond Creek to Pearce Rapids 

electrofishing was hampered by high levels of turbidity (>8000 NTUs), while 96 sites were sampled 
48

only 382 fish were captured. 

Summary of trends:

Nonnative Rainbow Trout continue to dominate the fish community within Lees Ferry and Marble 

Canyon reaches of the Colorado River and begin declining in abundance (e.g. lower CPUE) near the 

Little Colorado River confluence. Native fish (Flannelmouth Sucker and Speckled Dace) begin 

dominating the fish community downstream of the confluence with the Little Colorado River. In 

general, catch rates for most fish species remained stable over the past five years, with the exception 

of Rainbow Trout. Rainbow Trout CPUE has significantly declined over the past three years. 

Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon

Goals and Objectives: The goal of “Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon” is to monitor the 

status and trends of Rainbow Trout abundance and distribution in the Colorado River reach between 

Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry via boat electrofishing to obtain a representative sample of the 

fish community within the reach. The general objectives are to monitor the trout fishery to determine 

status and trends in relative abundance (catch per unit effort), population structure (size 

composition), distribution, reproductive success, growth rate, relative condition (Kn) and overall 

recruitment to reproductive size in response to Glen Canyon Dam operations. In addition, we 

conduct one night of nonnative sampling in July within this reach to monitor nonnative species.

Monitoring activities funded (boat electrofishing trips):

o Spring trip: 17-20 March 2015, 40 standard sample sites

o Summer trip: 6-10 July 2015, 40 standard sample sites, plus an additional 11sites for 

nonnatives

o Fall trip: 5-8 October 2015, 37 standard sample sites

Summary of progress: We completed three sampling trips in 2015, sampling 117 standard sites in 

total and capturing 2576 fish (excluding the nonnative sampling). Nonnative sampling in July of 

2015 revealed 43 Green Sunfish in the slough at river mile -12. This triggered a response by the 

cooperating agencies to conduct a removal effort using seines, electrofishing and ultimately the use 

of Rotenone (in November) to remove these invasive fish from the “slough” and “upper slough”. 

Summary of trends: Rainbow trout continue to dominate the fish community within the Lees Ferry 

reach, comprising 97.0% of the catch (electrofishing). Rainbow Trout have maintained a selfsustaining population since the mid-1990s. Relative abundance, as measured by electrofishing catch 

per unit effort (CPUE), has fluctuated greatly since AGFD began standardized sampling in 1991. 

CPUE of rainbow trout was the highest ever recorded in 2011-2012, but has declined since 2012.

The percent of large fish in the system has declined as has the median size of reproductively active 

fish. In general, we believe there are more rainbow trout in the system (based on higher CPUE) than 

the system can maintain from its limited food base. Relative condition (Kn) of Rainbow Trout 

during our summer sampling has historically been above one (average Kn).Last year (2014) fish Kn 

was below one during all three sampling efforts (spring, summer, fall). This year there was an 

improvement with subadult (306-405 mm) and adult fish (>405 mm) condition above one during 

summer sampling.
49

Project Element 6.5. Brown trout natal origins through body pigmentation patterns in the 

Colorado River

This project was not funded in the FY15-17 triennial work plan. 

Project Element 6.6. Mainstem translocation of humpback chub

Funded in FY17

Project Element 6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Surveys

Field activities for the Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey (RTELSS) in 2015 consisted of redd 

surveys for estimation of spawning magnitude, and electrofishing sampling for estimation of 

population dynamics

Redd Surveys

A total of 11 redd surveys were conducted through the period December 2014 through June 2015. A 

total of 1,630 redds were observed, with the overall estimate of 1,331 redds created for the season. 

The overall pattern of redd distribution was similar to past years, though the peak was a couple 

weeks past what is typical. In past years the peak has occurred around mid to late March. The peak 

in distribution for 2015 was nearer to early to mid-April. There was a significant decrease in the 

number of adult fish caught on Natal Origins trips between January and April. Anecdotal reports 

from anglers indicate the decrease occurred from February to March. It is possible that adult fish 

that may not have matured to spawning condition under high densities did so after the observed 

decrease in adult numbers. This may explain the delayed peak in the distribution of redds deposited.

Another curious pattern in the redd distribution was a high degree of fluctuation between surveys. 

Typically what is observed is a steady increase in counts until the peak is reached, followed by a 

steady decline in numbers. Beginning in February 2015 counts began bouncing up and down 

between surveys, with a general trend of increasing numbers through May. This pattern appears to 

continue beyond May, though with a general trend of decreasing numbers, but not enough surveys 

were conducted after May to confirm this (Table 1).

Table 1. Dates of the 11 redd surveys conducting in 2015 and the number of redds observed for 

each of those surveys.
50

In other years the “zero” count (count low enough to be considered the end of the spawn) for the tail 

end of the distribution never occurred beyond June. This did not happen in 2015 and logistical 

constraints prohibited further surveys in July or beyond. The protraction of the spawn may also have 

been a result of late developing spawning adults.

Electrofishing Surveys

Three electrofishing surveys have been conducted in 2015, with a final one planned for midNovember. Age-0 population estimates for July, August, and September are 50,000 (18,000 Lower 

Confidence Interval (LCI); 20,000 Upper Confidence Interval (UCI)), 174,000 (48,000 LCI; 62,000 

UCI), and 34,000 (9,000 LCI, 8,000 UCI), respectively. The estimate for September is likely 

inaccurate. Natal Origins sampling that occurred in September and October indicates numbers of 

age-0 fish are still high. The discrepancy is attributed to different methods of shocking between 

programs and their relative efficacies in an environment of increasing density of Potamogetan along 

shoreline habitat. Taking information from both programs, hatch success and long-term survival 

appear to be high for age-0 fish. This may be attributable to low densities of adult fish.

Project Element 6.8. Lees Ferry Creel Survey

Goals and Objectives: The cold tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam is an important recreational 

fishery for rainbow trout. The goal of the “Lees Ferry Angler Surveys” project is to monitor the 

status of the fishery and estimate angler use by conducting angler surveys to obtain a representative 

sample of the recreational angling community that utilizes this resource. AGFD uses a stratified 

random sampling approach to select a subset of days for interviews, and interviews both boat and 

shoreline anglers. Information obtained includes but is not limited to catch rates, gear type, species 

composition, harvest, and satisfaction with experience. 

Summary of progress: As of this report, we have collected data for 2015 up to the end of 

September. Data for October through December 2015 will be analyzed and included in our annual 

report, to be submitted in 2016. Sampling days were stratified by month (6 days) and by weekday (2 

days) and weekend (4 days). AGFD has been working with Lucas Bair at GCMRC on an economic 

study of the Lees Ferry fishery; this has included supplementary creel days in the spring and fall, 
51

along with collecting angler address data during AGFD creels for a follow up survey. As of 

September 2015 we have conducted angler surveys on 57 days (including supplemental surveys).

Summary of trends: Catch per unit effort (CPUE) levels for boat anglers is significantly less this 

year than last year (paired T-test; P = 0.0303). As of September 63.5 % of the anglers were from 

Arizona and the rest from out of state (or country). Half (50.1 %) of the boat anglers interviewed 

used a guide. For calendar year 2014 we conservatively estimated about 10,908 angler use days for 

the Lees Ferry fishery. Angler use is defined as one angler fishing one day, regardless of the length 

of time spent that day. There has been a significant decline in angler use of the fishery since 2002, 

despite angler satisfaction remaining high with a score of 4.23, and 3.46 (on a scale of 0-5) for boat 

and shore line anglers respectively.

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Journal 

Article

Avery, L. A., Korman, J., 

and Persons, W. R. (2015) 

Effects of Increased 

Discharge on Spawning and 

Age-0 Recruitment of 

Rainbow Trout in the 

Colorado River at Lees 

Ferry, Arizona. North 

American Journal of 

Fisheries Management. 

Online.

Aug. 

2015

Thesis

Brizendine, Morgan 2015. 

Use of ultrasonic imaging to 

evaluate egg maturation of 

humpback chub Gila cypha . 

MS Thesis, University of 

Arizona

Dec. 

2015

Journal 

Article

Bair, L.S., D.L. Rogowski, 

and C. Neher. In-review. 

Economic Value of Angling 

on the Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry: Using Secondary 

Data to Estimate the 

Influence of Seasonality. 

North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management. 

Oct 2015
52

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $187,000 $4,900 $29,100 $290,000 $0 $38,829 $549,829 

Actual

Spent $192,555 $4,212 $17,078 $265,057 $0 $37,105 $516,007 

(Over)/Under

Budget ($5,555) $688 $12,022 $24,943 $0 $1,724 $33,822 

To other

USGS Centers Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Carryover: $40,300, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Project 6 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements
53

Project 7: Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and around the Little Colorado River

Program Manager 

(PM) Charles Yackulic Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

Charles Yackulic, USGS, 

GCMRC

Kirk Young, USFWS

Kim Dibble, USGS, GCMRC

Mike Yard, USGS, GCMRC

Maria Dzul, USGS, GCMRC

David Rogowski, AZGFD

Randy VanHaverbeke, 

USFWS

Dennis Stone, USFWS

David Ward, USGS, GCMRC

Jeff Muehlbauer, USGS, 

GCMRC

Josh Korman, EcoMetric 

Research

Ted Kennedy, USGS, GCMRC

Email cyackulic@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7379

SUMMARY 

The goals of this project are to:

1) Monitor humpback chub in the lower 13.6 km of the Little Colorado River (LCR) and 

Colorado River reference site (river mile (RM) 63.0-64.5) 

2) Estimate recruitment and outmigration from the LCR by marking juvenile humpback chub 

throughout the lower 13.6 km of the LCR in July. 

3) Develop field and analytical techniques to better use remote technologies for detecting 

passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags to address questions of trap avoidance and to 

potentially minimize future handling of chub. 

4) Develop new non-lethal tools for measuring the health and condition of humpback chub in 

the field. 

5) Undertake targeted, cost-effective research to understand mechanisms underlying observed 

population processes, including the roles of high CO2 at base flow, gravel limitation, 

parasites, and the aquatic food base. 

6) 6) Continue to develop models that integrate findings from the above projects.

We have made progress with respect to all of these goals. Standard monitoring in both the LCR and 

Colorado River reference site (i.e., “JCM” site) continued this year and data are currently being 

analyzed to determine parameters (e.g., abundance, survival) of direct relevance to the GCDAMP. 

Spring sampling in the LCR led by Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish suggests 

that the number of adult humpback chub in the LCR was substantially lower this year, which can be 

explained via three hypotheses: A) a large proportion of humpback chub, which are known to skip 

spawn (Yackulic et al., 2014; Pearson et al., 2015), may have chosen to not spawn this year, B) 

humpback chub adults may have exhibited higher than average mortality between the 2014 and 2015 

spawning seasons, or C) standard monitoring trips may have missed the timing of this year’s spawn. 

Informal analysis of data from the fixed PIT tag array in the LCR suggests a similar timing of 
54

migration in 2015 as in the year before, suggesting that the third hypothesis is unlikely. Examination 

of adult fish condition, based on data collected in the mainstem JCM reach, suggests that adults were 

in poor condition in the months leading up to the spawn, lending support to hypotheses A and B. 

Currently, we believe that hypothesis A is most likely, based on the assumption that adult humpback 

chub generally have low mortality rates and because it seems likely that humpback chub would 

forego spawning when they were generally in poor condition. However, given uncertainty in adult 

numbers and the difficulties of measuring adult chub in the mainstem Colorado, we will not be 

certain which hypothesis is most likely until after this coming spring. Despite a low number of adult 

spawners, analyses based on sampling of juvenile humpback chub in July, suggest that juvenile 

abundance was approximately ~50% greater than in either of the two prior years (~20,000 as 

compared to 14,000 and 11,000 in 2013 and 2014). 

We have made some progress in developing analytical techniques to better use remote technologies; 

however, progress has been limited by competing demands on analysts’ time for other GCDAMP 

related priorities, as well as reduced funding in FY15 for the statistical modelling group. Substantial 

progress has been made in the development of non-lethal tools for measuring condition of 

humpback, with lab trials completed and analysis of results underway. Research into the roles of 

CO2, gravel limitation, parasites and the aquatic food base are all progressing without delays. 

Lastly, development of statistical models to understand humpback chub population dynamics is 

progressing with particular emphasis placed on better understanding the environmental drivers of 

humpback chub growth in this fiscal year and with two publications on humpback chub growth 

submitted to peer-reviewed journals. We are optimistic that if rainbow trout abundances remain low 

for the coming year, that we will be able to gain a better understanding of the relationship between 

humpback chub survival and rainbow trout abundance.

Specific findings from monitoring and research projects:

Long term monitoring in the LCR

In 2015, four monitoring trips were conducted by USFWS, Arizona Game and Fish, and volunteers 

to monitor the spring and fall population status of humpback chub in the LCR. These trips occurred 

during April/May, and September/October. During the April/May trips, it was estimated that there 

were 3,999 (SE = 314) humpback chub ≥150 mm in the lower 13.6 km of the LCR. Of these fish, it 

was estimated that 3,078 (SE = 246) were adults ≥200 mm. As mentioned above, these numbers 

were significantly lower than abundance estimates obtained since 2008, however, the reason why is 

not known. An additional mark-recapture effort (abundance results forthcoming) was conducted 

during the September/October timeframe. Interestingly, catches of humpback chub ≥150 mm and 

≥200 mm during the September trip were the highest since this project began in fall 2000. We 

captured 1,131 unique chub ≥150 mm and 661 unique chub ≥200 mm during the September trip. 

Our next highest September catch of unique chub ≥150 mm and ≥200 mm was 774 and 578 fish, 

respectively, in fall 2010, suggesting that the decline in abundance seen during spring 2015 was 

more likely due to a large portion of chub temporarily remaining in the mainstem rather than 

entering the LCR to spawn. Unfortunately, flooding, very high turbidities, and low catch rates of 

chub during the October 2015 recapture trip might weaken our fall population estimate, which is 

forthcoming. On the positive side, production of the 2015 age-0 cohort appeared to be relatively 

strong, and despite the flooding, 303 age-0 chub were captured during October and translocated to 
55

above Chute Falls. 

Juvenile chub monitoring in the Colorado River research site

In 2015, river trips sampled humpback chub near the LCR-Colorado River confluence in January, 

April, July, and September as part of the juvenile chub monitoring (JCM) project. These trips used 

two gears (slow-shock electrofishing and hoopnets) to capture fishes. All humpback chub > 99mm 

total length (TL) were marked with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, and all humpback 

chub between 40-99mm TL were marked using visual implant elastomer (VIE). In total, JCM trips 

captured 1,652 humpback chub > 99mm TL (compared to 819 in 2014) and 1,396 chub between 40-

99mm TL (compared to 1,502 in 2014). Specifically, in 2015 catch of humpback chub>99mm TL 

by trip was as follows: 210 (Jan), 64 (Apr), 454 (Jul), and 924 (Sep). In addition, trip-specific catch 

of humpback chub between 40-99mm TL was as follows: 73 (Jan), 227 (Apr), 238 (Jul), and 858 

(Sep). 

Pre-monsoon juvenile chub sampling in the LCR

From June 26 to July 8, 2015 three teams completed two passes of the LCR using multiple gears. 

3,633 juvenile chub (40 – 99 mm) were marked with VIE as part of this effort (compared to 2,399 

and 2,426 juvenile chub in 2013 and 2014). Juvenile chub were found throughout the sampled area, 

but were most abundant in middle reaches. The majority of the marked fish were between 40 and 60 

mm and the average total length of juvenile chub was 55.2 mm (compared to 50.3 mm in 2013 and 

56.3 mm in 2014). 

Remote PIT tag array monitoring

The remote PIT tag array continues to be plagued by technical difficulties and, when functioning, to 

provide unique pertinent information. There were several months over the winter and early spring 

during which the lower array was not functioning as the batteries had failed. These batteries were 

replaced in April and there have been no known issues since, though communication with the 

system has been limited since late June. Problems with the remote communications component of 

the MUX antenna system have prevented any remote data download since the end of June. Data 

were downloaded directly in October and one problem was resolved then, however we are still 

troubleshooting a second problem, which will require replacing aging equipment at the rim relay 

station and a site visit to the array inside the gorge. The data that was collected through June 

indicates similar timing for this year’s spawning migration; however, the magnitude of the migration 

appears to have been much less. The total number of humpback chub detections at the upstream 

array only for the January to June period (where detection was unique on a daily basis) for years 

2012 through 2015 were 3,745, 4,090, 4,755, and 1,961, respectively. 

Food web monitoring in the LCR

Six invertebrate sampling trips were completed in the LCR in FY15: in October 2014 and March, 

April, May, June, and September 2015. Trips represent an intensive 4-day sampling effort involving 

4 people deploying and collecting traps throughout the 21-km perennial reach of the LCR. A total of 

872 sticky traps, benthic samples, and light traps were collected during these trips, representing ~ 
56

50,000 collected insect individuals. Newly-derived results from the previous year’s (2014) sampling 

indicated pronounced patterns in insect density and diversity throughout the LCR, with greater 

numbers of both in the reach upstream of Chute Falls, particularly low numbers near Salt Camp, and 

otherwise a general decline proceeding downstream from the LCR’s perennial source at Blue Spring 

to its confluence with the mainstem Colorado River. The data also showed seasonal patterns in 

insect availability, with a strong peak in April. Thus, 2015 sampling was structured to provide 

confirmatory evidence for these findings, including the addition of a March sampling trip to verify 

the April peak, and the deployment of light sensors to examine canyon shading and water turbidity 

as potential influences on the observed longitudinal diversity and density patterns.

Analysis of fish diets collected over 5 trips (2012–2015) from the lower reach of the LCR is nearing 

completion. Gut contents from over 450 fish were collected, including humpback chub (>100 mm, 

via nonlethal lavage) and juveniles and adults of the other native and nonnative fishes occupying 

this segment. Sampling encompassed an array of seasonal and hydrological conditions; clear 

summer baseflow, summer monsoonal flooding, fall flooding and spring flooding, and clear winter 

baseflow. Preliminary results reveal high levels of omnivory in native fishes and reliance upon a 

large array of food items of both aquatic and terrestrial origin. Both within and across seasons, adult 

humpback chub had the most diverse diets (75 different food resources identified, 1.5-2X more than 

any other species) and exhibited heavy use of terrestrially-derived resources; the latter was true even 

under summer, clear-water conditions when chub consumed similar amounts of invertebrates of 

terrestrial and aquatic origin. Normalized measures of total mass of gut contents varied with 

season/hydrologic condition and were highest during and immediately following a summer flood, 

42% lower during summer clear-water, and 77% and 85% lower for fall and winter, respectively; 

observations that suggest chub and other native fishes experience patterns of “feast and famine” in 

the LCR. Results from this study will help assess the potential competition for food (e.g., there is 

substantial dietary overlap among fishes for limited aquatic invertebrate resources) and shed light on 

the relative roles of the LCR and mainstem Colorado River in sustaining populations of chub and 

other native fishes.

Effects of high CO2 on chub early life history

CO2 concentrations were mapped within the LCR from Horse Trail to the confluence with the 

Colorado River on May 22-May 25, 2015 using an Oxyguard portable CO2 meter. CO2 

concentrations above Blue Springs are low enough to support fish (<10 mg/l). At blue springs CO2 

concentrations increased to 310 ppm and remained above 30 mg/l until RKM 16. Carbon dioxide 

concentrations decrease gradually from Salt camp (11 ppm) to 5 ppm near the confluence. In general 

CO2 concentrations were found to be significantly lower than measurements previously reported 

using titration methods. Richard Wanty (USGS Geochemist) from Denver will be assisting us next 

year to rectify these discrepancies. Laboratory studies are underway to evaluate native and nonative 

fish tolerance to high CO2 during early life stages. These results will be compared to measured CO2 

levels in the LCR at base flow to evaluate potential impacts of CO2 on fish populations.

Asian tapeworm monitoring

Tapeworm monitoring was conducted in the LCR at Boulders camp from May 25-29, 2015. Fortyeight humpback chub (35 – 388 mm TL) were treated with two doses of Praziquantel at 6 mg/l. Only 
57

14 Asian tapeworms were recovered from 5 fish. No fish under 100 mm TL were infested. This 

represents a significantly lower infestation rate than was found during the 2005 sampling. Three 

juvenile humpback chub died during the treatment and holding procedure. All other fish were 

released alive following treatment.

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis

Laboratory trials to develop a non-lethal tool to quantify the condition of humpback chub were 

completed in FY15. Laboratory trial focused on different fish size classes, temperatures, and feeding 

treatments (ad libitum, restricted). To develop this as an accurate tool that can be applied in the field, 

BIA measurements were compared to measures of proximate composition (% lipid, protein, etc.). To 

estimate the level of mortality for fish subjected to BIA measurements, we conducted mortality 

trials. Analysis of BIA, proximate composition, and mortality data is currently underway and a 

manuscript will be produced in FY16 
58

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Journal 

article 

C Finch, Pine WE, 

Yackulic CB, Dodrill MJ, 

Yard M, Gerig BS, 

Coggins LG, and Korman 

J (2015) Assessing 

Juvenile Native Fish 

Demographic Responses 

to a Steady Flow 

Experiment in a Large 

Regulated River. River 

Research and 

Applications. Online

Mar. 2015

Journal 

article

MJ Dodrill, CB Yackulic, 

B Gerig, WE Pine, J 

Korman and C Finch 

(2014) Do management 

actions to restore rare 

habitat benefit native fish 

conservation? 

Distribution of juvenile 

native fish among 

shoreline habitats of the 

Colorado River. River 

Research and 

Applications. Online

Oct. 2014

Journal 

article

MC Dzul, CB Yackulic, 

DM Stone, DR Van 

Haverbeke (2014) 

Survival, growth, and 

movement of subadult 

humpback chub, Gila 

cypha, in the Little 

Colorado River, Arizona. 

River Research and 

Applications. Online

Dec. 2014

Journal 

article

DL Ward, and R MortonStarner (2015) Effects of 

water temperature and 

fish size on predation 

vulnerability of juvenile 

humpback chub to 

rainbow and brown trout.

Nov. 

2015
59

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Transactions of the 

American Fisheries 

Society. In Press

Journal 

article

Pillow, M.J. 2015. 

Spring 2015 

Monitoring of 

Humpback Chub 

(Gila cypha) and

other Fishes in the 

Lower 13.57 km of 

the Little Colorado 

River, Arizona. Trip 

Report: 14-24 April 

and 19-29 May 2015. 

Delivered July 2015

Journal 

article

Stone. D.M. and M.J. 

Pillow. 2015. Fall 

2015 Monitoring of 

Humpback Chub 

(Gila cypha) and

other Fishes in the 

Lower 13.57 km of 

the Little Colorado 

River, Arizona. Trip 

Report: 22 Sept - 1 

Oct and 23 Oct – 1 

Nov 2015. To be 

delivered Dec 2015

Journal 

article

Van Haverbeke, D.R., 

K. Young, D.M. 

Stone and M.J. 

Pillow. In prep. Mark 

recapture and fish 

monitoring activities 

in the Little Colorado 

River in Grand 

Canyon from 2000 to 

2015. Annual Report. 

To be delivered Jan 

2016.
60

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Confer

ence 

present

ation

CB Yackulic (2015) 

Population dynamics of 

Humpback Chub that 

spawn in the Little 

Colorado River: drivers 

and their implications for 

management. Biennial 

Conference on Science 

and Management on the 

Colorado Plateau. 

Flagstaff, AZ. 

Oct. 2015

Confer

ence 

present

ation

MC Dzul, and CB 

Yackulic (2015) Using 

environmental covariates 

to predict growth in two 

contrasting environments: 

a growth assessment of an 

endangered desert fish.

Biennial Conference on 

Science and 

Management on the 

Colorado Plateau. 

Flagstaff, AZ.

Oct. 2015

Confer

ence 

present

ation

JD Muehlbauer, TA 

Kennedy, EW 

Kortenhoeven, JT Smith 

(2015) Longitudinal and 

temporal patterns of food 

availability for 

endangered humpback 

chub, Gila cypha, in the 

Little Colorado River, 

Arizona. Desert Fishes 

Council Annual Meeting, 

Death Valley, NV.

Nov. 2015

Confer

ence 

present

ation

JD Muehlbauer, TA 

Kennedy, EW 

Kortenhoeven JT Smith 

(2015) There’s more than 

Aug. 2015
61

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

one way to shade a river: 

contrasting influence of 

canyon orientation and 

water clarity on aquatic 

invertebrate densities.

Ecological Society of 

America Annual 

Meeting, Baltimore, MD.

Confer

ence 

present

ation

KL Dibble, M Yard and 

DL Ward (2015) 

Development of a nonlethal tool to assess the 

physiological condition of 

endangered fish species in 

Grand Canyon, USA.

American Fisheries 

Society, Portland, OR. 

Aug. 2015

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $508,600 $15,000 $61,100 $555,000 $0 $96,362 $1,236,062 

Actual

Spent $451,614 $12,611 $39,105 $545,000 $0 $84,969 $1,133,300 

(Over)/Under

Budget $56,986 $2,389 $21,995 $10,000 $0 $11,393 $102,762 

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $119,700, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Didn't buy all planned equipment this FY.

Project 7 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total
62

Project 8: Experimental Actions to Increase Abundance and Distribution of Native Fishes in 

Grand Canyon

Program Manager 

(PM) David Ward Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

David Ward, USGS, GCMRC

Brian Healy, NPS

Clay Nelson, NPS

Emily Omana, NPS

Kirk Young, USFWS

Dennis Stone, USFWS

Randy VanHaverbeke,

USFWS

David Rogowski, AZGFD

Scott VanderKooi, USGS, 

GCMRC

Email dlward@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7280

SUMMARY 

This project encompasses two ongoing management actions, a protocol evaluation panel review of 

fish monitoring and research efforts and two new projects funded in 2017. The protocol evaluation 

panel will take place in FY16 or 17. Specific findings from the funded monitoring and research 

projects are listed below.

Project Element 8.1. Efficacy and Ecological Impacts of Trout Removal at Bright Angel Creek

Trout removal using elecrofishing occurred in the mainstem Colorado River near the confluence 

with Bright Angel Creek from Feb 4 - 20, 2015. This experimental action is being conducted in 

collaboration with Grand Canyon National Park, consistent with the NPS Comprehensive Fisheries 

Management Plan and related compliance documents. The removal effort was re-scheduled to 

February to avoid conflicts with the 2014 High Flow Experiment and associated logistical 

constraints. Unfortunately, turbid conditions again made electrofishing efficacy and capture 

probability low. Crews removed 391 rainbow trout and 84 brown trout. All harvested fish were 

cleaned, vacuum sealed in bags, and frozen for human consumption. 

The timing of the 2015 Bright Angel removal trip (February) occurred later than in 2014 

(November), making direct comparisons of trout captures difficult, but numbers did decrease from 

828 to 391for rainbow trout, and 222 to 84 for brown trout, from 2014 to 2015, respectively. Both 

years experienced turbid water for the majority of sampling, although 10 depletions were completed 

in 2015 compared to only 5 depletions in 2014. The apparent decrease in trout abundance seems to 

also coincide with decreases in trout observed throughout Glen and Marble Canyons, and a 

significant reduction of trout within BAC. This reduction in numbers also corresponds to poor 

condition observed in rainbow trout in our study area as well as declining condition observed 

throughout the system since 2014 from Arizona Game and Fish monitoring data. Conversely, the 

number of native fish caught in the same area increased from 41 to 270 for flannelmouth sucker, and 

33 to 120 for bluehead sucker from 2014 to 2015, respectively. Increases in the catch of native 

species are likely due to a combination of increased sampling in 2015 compared to 2014 (5 to 10 

depletions), and sampling effort occurring later in the spring when flannelmouth sucker spawn in 

Bright Angel Creek. Increases in the catch of native fish may also be the result of increased native 
63

fish abundance in the area because of ongoing nonnative fish removal by the Park Service within 

Bright Angel Creek. Additional years of data will be needed to evaluate this hypothesis, but the 

results to this point appear promising.

Project Element 8.2. Translocation and monitoring of Humpback chub above Chute Falls in 

the Little Colorado

River

The goals of this project are to:

1) Annually translocate at least 300 juvenile humpback chub from lower portions of the Little 

Colorado River (LCR) to above Chute Falls in the LCR. 

2) Annually monitor the abundance of humpback chub above river kilometer (rkm) 13.6 km in 

the LCR. This includes monitoring in a small reach of river known as the Atomizer reach 

(rkm 13.6-14.1) and the reach of river known as the Chute Falls reach (rkm 14.1 km- 17.7).

This project is a direct attempt to conduct a conservation measure to translocate humpback chub to 

upstream of rkm 13.6 in the Little Colorado River (LCR) (USFWS 2008, 2011), and is intended to 

increase growth rates and survivorship, expand the range, and ultimately augment the LCR 

humpback chub aggregation in Grand Canyon. In addition, this project provides managers with an 

annual index of abundance and trend of humpback chub residing above rkm 13.6. 

Translocation:

Efforts to translocate humpback chub upstream of Chute Falls in the LCR have been ongoing since 

2003 (Figure xx). To date, approximately 2,969 juvenile (~80-130 mm TL) humpback chub have 

been translocated to upstream of Chute Falls. Of these, 303 humpback chub were released above 

Chute Falls (at rkm 16.2) on November 1, 2015. The project is identified as a Conservation Measure 

in the 2011 Biological Opinion. Our monitoring activities also coincide with joint efforts with the 

National Park Service to collect juvenile or larval humpback chub for transport to the Southwest 

Native Aquatic Research and Recovery Center (SNARRC), destined for grow out and release into 

Shinumo and Havasu Creeks. This year, during May 2015, approximately 300 larval humpback 

chub were collected and transported to SNARRC. 

Monitoring:

From 2006–2009, two pass mark-recapture population estimates of humpback chub were conducted 

upstream of rkm 13.6 in the Atomizer Falls and Chute Falls reaches of the LCR. During these trips, 

capture probability data was obtained. From 2010–2015, this set of capture probability data was 

used to annually estimate the abundance of humpback chub above rkm 13.6 (Figure xx). During 

2015, a trip was conducted during 19–28 May to estimate abundances of humpback chub upstream 

of rkm 13.6 in the LCR. For 2015, was estimated that there were 247 humpback chub ≥100 mm (SE 

= 55) in the Chute Falls reach, and 435 ≥100 mm (SE = 80) in the Atomizer Falls reach. Of these, it 

was estimated that there were 29 humpback chub ≥200 mm (SE = 6) in the Chute Falls reach, and 

177 ≥200 mm in the Atomizer reach (SE = 30). Results have also indicated unusually rapid growth 

of translocated fish, and high apparent survival. 
64

A.

Figure A. Numbers of humpback chub that have been translocated upstream of Chute Falls since 

2003 (black bars), and abundances (±95% CI) of adult humpback chub (≥ 200 mm) in upper reach 

upstream of Chute Falls (river km [rkm] 14.1 to 17.7) since summer 2006, and

B.

Figure B. Abundances (±95% CI) of adult humpback chub in lower reach downstream of Chute 

Falls (rkm 13.57 – 14.1) since summer 2006. Note, abundances for both upper and lower reaches are 

shown as those estimated with Chapman Petersen mark-recapture (dark grey bars) and those 

estimated using capture probability data (light grey bars) derived from the 2006-2009 Chapman 

Petersen mark-recapture efforts.

Project Element 8.3.Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Fisheries Research, 

Monitoring, and

Management Actions Protocol Evaluation Panel

Project element funded in FY 16 or 17.

Project Element 8.4. Little Colorado River Invasive Aquatic Species Surveillance

Project element funded in FY 17.
65

Project Element 8.5. Genetic monitoring of Humpback chub in Grand Canyon

Project element funded in FY 17.

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Trip

Report

Bright Angel Creek inflow 

trout reduction pilot study. 

Trip Report, 4-20 February 

2015.

Aug

2015

Trip 

Report

Stone, D.M. 2015. Spring 2015 

Monitoring of Humpback 

Chub (Gila cypha) and Other 

Fishes above Lower Atomizer 

Falls in the Little Colorado 

River, Arizona. Trip Report 

19-29 May 2015.

July 2015

Trip 

Report

Stone. D.M. and M.J. Pillow. 

2015. Fall 2015 Monitoring of 

Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) 

and

other Fishes in the Lower 

13.57 km of the Little 

Colorado River, Arizona. Trip 

Report: 22 Sept - 1 Oct and 23 

Oct – 1 Nov 2015. 

Dec 

2015 Dec 2015 Trip Report

Annual 

Report 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., K. 

Young, D.M. Stone and M.J. 

Pillow. In prep. Mark 

recapture and fish monitoring 

activities in the Little Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon from 

2000 to 2015.

Jan 

2016 Jan 2016
66

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $53,700 $0 $7,500 $68,200 $0 $10,389 $139,789 

Actual

Spent $50,957 $104 $355 $68,151 $0 $9,054 $128,622 

(Over)/Under

Budget $2,743 ($104) $7,145 $49 $0 $1,335 $11,167 

To other

USGS Centers Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $13,100, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Project 8 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements
67

Project 9: Understanding the Factors Determining Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and 

Movement of Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons

Program Manager 

(PM) Mike Yard Investigator(s) (I) Mike Yard, USGS, GCMRC

Kim Dibble, USGS, GCMRC

Josh Korman, Ecometric 

Research

Charles Yackulic, USGS, 

GCMRC

Ted Melis, USGS, GCMRC

David Rogowski, AZGFD

Ted Kennedy, USGS, GCMRC

David Ward, USGS, GCMRC

Mike Dodrill, USGS, GCMRC

Dan Buscombe, USGS, 

GCMRC

Paul Grams, USGS, GCMRC

Tom Gushue, USGS, GCMRC

Email myard@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7377

SUMMARY 

Project Element 9.1. Rainbow Trout Population Dynamics – Ongoing Modelling and Future 

Monitoring

In 2015, multiple cooperators AGFD (Project Element 6.8) and Ecometric (Project Element 9.2) have 

continued to collect monitoring data on the Lees Ferry fishery to provide long-term status and trend 

information. All of these data are to be evaluated to determine whether or not conventional catch-perunit indices or other types of sampling approaches are appropriate for meeting long-term monitoring 

needs of the GCDAMP. In FY16, GCMRC in conjunction with the Science Advisors program is 

convening a protocol evaluation panel (PEP; see Project Element 8.3) to review the fisheries 

monitoring program. The development of this fisheries monitoring plan is a collaborative process that 

involves current cooperators (USFWS, NPS, AGFD, and Ecometric, Inc.). Upon final review, PEP 

recommendations are to be incorporated into the new monitoring project and implemented in FY17.

Project Element 9.2. Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches of the 

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam/Natal Origins 

The primary goal of the Natal Origins Project (NO) is to estimate abundance, movement, growth, and 

survival of age-0 and older rainbow trout (RBT) between Glen Canyon Dam and the Little Colorado 

River (LCR) confluence area. Research and monitoring objectives are to quantify the extent of trout 

movement from Lees Ferry into Marble Canyon and the LCR confluence area. And to determine the 

physical and biological factors responsible for trout movement (density, food, growth, turbidity, HFEs, 

etc.). 

In FY15, the NO project completed four downstream river trips (Jan, Apr, Jul, and Sep 2015, 21-day 

trips) and two fall-Glen Canyon trips (Oct and Dec 2014, 10-day trips). A total of 19,108 RBT were 
68

captured and 10,639 RBT were newly marked and released with PIT-tags on the four downstream river 

trips. This represents a 46% decrease in total catch compared to the previous year (2014). RBT 

abundance in all five NO study reaches has declined substantially since initiating the study (2012), 

current trout densities observed in reach I (Glen Canyon) and IVb (below LCR) were approximately 

15,000 and 100 fish/km, respectively. The latter trout density (113 fish/km - 2015 average estimate) in 

IVb is well below one of the triggering criterion defined in the Biological Opinion (2011) for 

determining when nonnative fish control will take place near the LCR. In comparison to past years, this 

is a substantial reduction in the total number of fish caught and tagged and likely reflects a change in 

RBT recruitment from migrants as well as a decrease in the overall survival. Results based on the JollySeber model indicate a decreasing trend in the 90-day survival rate estimates made across years 

between September and April. The 90-day survival rate estimates averaged across all reaches for the 

Sep14-Apr15 interval was 0.27, which is substantially less compared to 0.75 and 0.64 for Sep12-Apr13 

and Sep13-Apr14 intervals, respectively. Reduced trout growth and condition in the late-spring and 

summer (April-September) of 2014 led to decreases in trout survival throughout the entire river system 

that affected larger sized fish disproportionately. Although trout abundance levels have been reduced 

across all of the NO reaches, the remaining RBT appear to have recovered and are demonstrating better 

seasonal growth and condition (reaches I-III). 

Two papers were recently published on the findings of RBT abundance, survival, movement, and 

growth from Project F.6 in FY13–14 Biennial Work Plan. In summary, the vast majority of rainbow 

trout exhibited very limited movement based on differences between release and recapture locations. 

Of the across-trip recaptures where release and recapture locations were known, the average movement 

distance was 0.45 km downstream, and 95% of recaptures moved no more than 2.6 km upstream and 

5.2 km downstream. There were rare cases where fish moved longer distances. Restricting inferences to 

RBT that moved more than 20 km, approximately 70% moved in a downstream direction. Based on all 

sampling efforts, including fall Glen Canyon trips, only 158 of 8,166 recaptures (1.9%) were from 

reaches other than the one they were released in. Restricting the analysis to marks released and 

recaptured on downstream trips only resulted in a large reduction in recaptures for fish released 

upstream of Lees Ferry, though the conclusion of limited across-reach movement still holds. There 

were only 142 across-reach recaptures in this restricted data set used by the across-reach movement 

model, with more than half resulting from exchange between reaches IVa and IVb, which are relatively 

close together. With respect to predicting immigration to IVa and IVb from upstream sources, there 

were only 33 cases where marked trout were released in Glen Canyon or reaches II and III and later 

recaptured in reaches near the LCR.

Estimated across-reach movement percentages indicated very limited movement between most reaches. 

An average of only 1% of trout marked in reaches I, II, or III were estimated to move to reaches other 

than the ones they were released in. There was more exchange between reaches IVa and IVb due to 

their closer proximity, and estimated movement proportions indicated a greater tendency for trout to 

move downstream from IVa to IVb (7.8%) compared to moving upstream (1.7%). Movement 

proportions from reaches I-III to reaches near the LCR suggest very limited movement from Glen 

Canyon to the LCR, and a higher probability of moving from locations in Marble Canyon to the LCR 

with decreasing distance. Predicted and estimated recruitment to reaches near the LCR were in close 

agreement. The Jolly-Seber model estimated that 16,200 rainbow trout recruited to reaches IVa and 

IVb over the study period. The mean of the posterior distribution of the predicted immigration to these 

reaches from upstream sources, determined by the across-reach movement model, was 17,400 trout. 

Reach-specific results were also in close agreement. Locations closer to reaches near the LCR (lower 

Marble Canyon) made larger contributions to immigration relative to more distant sources (Glen 

Canyon and upper and middle Marble Canyon), even though abundance at the more distant source 

locations was much higher. In reach IVa, the vast majority of immigration came from the section 
69

represented by reach III. The majority of immigration to reach IVb was from approximately equal 

contributions from sections represented by III and IVa. 

These past results and future findings (FY15–16) will be used to help further inform future analyses 

planned to determine what effects physical and biological factors have on RBT abundance, survival, 

movement, and growth over the 75 mile-long study area between Glen Canyon Dam to just 

downstream of the LCR confluence. 

Manuscript in progress related to this project topic.

Korman, J. and M.D. Yard. Effects of abiotic and biotic factors on electrofishing capture probabilities. 

In Preparation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

Project Element 9.3. Exploring the Mechanisms behind Trout Growth, Reproduction, and 

Movement in Glen and Marble Canyon using Lipid (fat) Reserves as an Indicator of 

Physiological Condition 

Field data collection was completed in FY15 during fish sampling associated with the Natal Origins 

Project (9.2). Approximately 100 rainbow and 25 brown trout were sampled during each trip and 

muscle, liver, and hindgut tissue excised in the field. All samples were processed in the laboratory and 

lipids were extracted from each tissue sampled using gravimetric extraction techniques. At the present 

time, data acquisition and a preliminary analysis is complete. A more in-depth analysis that includes 

information from the food base (stomach contents; drift) as well as other biological and physical factors 

is planned this winter, and one manuscript associated with Project 9.3 will be submitted for peer-review 

in FY16. 

Project Element 9.4. Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish (NOT 

FUNDED) 

The funding source for this project is undetermined. This project element will not be conducted in 

FY15–17.

Project Element 9.5. Meta-analysis, and the development of reactive distance relationships for 

encounter rate model.

The objective of this project element contains two parts: (1) determine the effects of varying light 

intensity and prey size on fish reactive distances; and (2) develop an encounter rate model for drift 

feeding fish that accounts for varying reactive distances and prey availability within the range of 

channel depths and light levels encountered in Glen and Marble Canyons. An extensive literature 

search on all known published data on reactive distances (i.e., distance a prey item can be visually 

detected) of visual sight-feeding fish was performed. We will evaluate literature and quantitatively 

summarize regression slopes obtained from independent studies, either published as relationships or 

through extraction of data from graphs and tables.

Project Element 9.6. Evaluation of Turbidity (in terms of TSS) as a potential Glen Canyon Dam 

operations management tool to constrain rainbow trout populations and reduce 

predation/competition on juvenile humpback chub 

We have constructed 4 recirculating artificial stream systems at the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Research Station in Flagstaff Arizona. These stream systems are capable of maintaining turbidities of 
70

50 – 200 FNU in suspension for 30 days or more without deterioration in water quality. Rainbow trout 

have been collected from Lees Ferry, acclimated to laboratory conditions, treated for parasites, and PIT 

tagged. Controlled laboratory experiments to evaluate the magnitude and duration of turbidity required 

to negatively impact rainbow trout survival will commence this winter.

Publication in progress related to this project topic.

Ward, DL., R. Morton-Starner, and B. Vaage. Effects of turbidity on predation vulnerability of 

juvenile humpback chub to rainbow and brown trout. In Review. Journal of fish and Wildlife 

Management. (expected publication date April 2016)

Project Element 9.7. Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river 

In order to understand the linkages between food availability, physical habitat, and rainbow trout 

growth, we continue to develop and refine a drift-foraging bioenergetics model. These types of models 

often include nonlinear descriptions of ecological processes and may be sensitive to how model inputs, 

such as invertebrate drift, are summarized. This is due to a mathematical property of nonlinear 

equations, known as Jensen’s inequality. By using simulations and two case studies, we have shown 

that drift-foraging models can be biased by alternative descriptions of invertebrate drift (a key input to 

the model), resulting in either an over or underestimation of available energy for fish growth. 

These findings are reported in a manuscript under review (Dodrill and Yackulic, In Review). This 

information will help guide the application of process based models to understand the role of turbidity 

in influencing rainbow trout foraging and growth.

Project Element 9.8. Mechanisms that Limit Rainbow and Brown Trout Growth in other 

Western Tailwater Systems 

We explored data from dams that had a long time series of high-quality fishery data (20+ years) to 

assess the mechanisms behind salmonid growth as they relate to dam operations. We determined that 

dams exhibiting a long time series of information were limited, but included the tailwaters in which we 

originally intended to apply bioenergetics models to in the second part of Project 9.8. Therefore, we 

combined the first and second parts of this project into one project aimed at understanding what drives 

rainbow and brown trout population dynamics in tailwaters across the western US (e.g., temperature, 

food availability, flow, density, etc.). Since we needed growth data, we used stock assessment software 

(FiSAT II) and modal progression analysis combined with a series of linear regressions to convert 

length-frequency data to fish growth (weight gain) data. In addition, we used pit tag data to calculate 

fish growth from two tailwaters. We then used the Wisconsin bioenergetics model to assess how 

temperature and estimated prey availability and energy density influence age-1 brown trout 

consumption in tailwaters downriver of multiple dams (Flaming Gorge, Holter, Navajo and 

Yellowtail). Brown trout consumption results, however, were uninteresting (i.e., nearly constant over 

time), and subsequent concerns about using lagged consumption as a predictor variable in brown trout 

adult length models resulted in a decision to forgo use of these data in the manuscript. In addition, we 

were unable to successfully apply bioenergetics models to rainbow trout growth data across tailwaters 

due to inherent flaws in the underlying data that were beyond our ability to predict at the start of this 

project. 

However, during this effort we amassed a large amount of tailwater temperature and reservoir data that 

we can use to assess what physical factors (including reservoir fullness, air temperature, and 
71

precipitation/snowpack levels) influence low and high temperature events in tailwaters across major 

River Basins in the intermountain West. We are currently analyzing this data and have incorporated 

temperature data into existing rainbow and brown trout models published in FY15 associated with 

Project H.4 in the FY13-14 Biennial Work Plan. This effort provides the opportunity to assess what 

physical factors have influenced tailwater temperature profiles in the past two decades, how 

temperature has influenced rainbow and brown trout recruitment and growth, and how tailwater 

temperatures and trout may respond to future climate warming. A manuscript associated with Project 

9.8 will be submitted for peer-review in FY16.

Publication in progress related to this project topic.

Dodrill, M. J and C. B. Yackulic. Alternative Ways to Summarize Invertebrate Drift Data Influence 

Predictions from Drift-Foraging Bioenergetics Models. In Review. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 

Project Element 9.9. Effects of High Experimental Flows on Rainbow Trout Population 

Dynamics 

The objective of this project element is to determine the effects of multiple fall HFEs and other 

potential management actions, such as the Fall Steady Flow treatments on rainbow trout populations in 

Glen Canyon. The study is designed to estimate changes in age-0 trout densities and survival during 

pre- and post-flood periods, and then compare estimates between years with and without experimental 

floods. A manuscript will be submitted for peer-review in FY17 upon the completion of the Natal 

Origin project (Project Element 9.2).

Project Element 9.10. Examining the Effects of High Flow Experiments on the Physiological 

Condition of Age-0 and Adult Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon 

Field sampling was conducted pre- and post-flood in FY15 associated with RTELSS (September 25-26, 

2014; Project 6.7), and the HFE Fall Mark Trips (October 21-31, December 4-14, 2014; Project 9.9). 

These samples will be compared to non-HFE samples collected in FY16 during the RTELSS and HFE 

Fall Mark Trips (November 14-15 and December 1-10, 2015, respectively). At the present time, preflood age-0 rainbow trout are being ground in the laboratory in preparation for lipid analysis. In winter 

FY16, samples from HFE and control years will be extracted and spotted on thin layer chromatography 

plates to quantify lipid classes. Otoliths will be removed from post-flood fish and pre- and post-flood 

growth rates will be calculated using the width between daily increments. These data will be analyzed 

and a manuscript submitted in FY17.

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title

Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Journal 

Article

Movement, Abundance, 

and Survival of 

Rainbow Trout in the 

Colorado River in 

Korman, J., M.D. Yard, 

and C.B. Yackulic. 

Movement, Abundance, 

and Survival of Rainbow 

Trout in the Colorado 
72

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title

Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Grand Canyon. River in Grand Canyon. 

Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 10.1139/cjfas2015-0101. 

Journal 

Article

Seasonal and Spatial 

Patterns of Growth of 

Rainbow Trout in the 

Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon

Yard, M.D., J. Korman, 

C. J. Walters, and T.A. 

Kennedy. Seasonal and 

Spatial Patterns of 

Growth of Rainbow 

Trout in the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon, 

AZ. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 10.1139/cjfas2015-0102.

Journal 

Article

Flow management and 

fish density regulate 

salmonid recruitment 

and adult size in 

tailwaters across 

western North America

Dibble, K.L., C.B. 

Yackulic, T. Kennedy, 

and P. Budy. In Press. 

Flow management and 

fish density regulate 

salmonid recruitment and 

adult size in tailwaters 

across western North 

America. Ecological 

Applications. http://dx.do

i.org/10.1890/14-2211.1 

Journal 

Aritcle

Prey Size and 

Availability Limits 

Maximum Size of 

Rainbow Trout in a 

Large Tailwater: 

Insights from a DriftForaging Bioenergetics 

Model

Dodrill, M. J., C. B. 

Yackulic, T. A. Kennedy, 

and J.W. Hayes. In Press. 

Prey Size and 

Availability Limits 

Maximum Size of 

Rainbow Trout in a Large 

Tailwater: Insights from 

a Drift-Foraging 

Bioenergetics Model. 

Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic 
73

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title

Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Sciences.

Journal 

Article

Effects of turbidity on 

predation vulnerability 

of juvenile humpback 

chub to rainbow and 

brown trout. In Review. 

Journal of fish and 

Wildlife Management. 

April 

2016

Ward, DL., R. MortonStarner, and B. Vaage. 

Effects of turbidity on 

predation vulnerability of 

juvenile humpback chub 

to rainbow and brown 

trout. In Review. 

Journal of fish and 

Wildlife Management. 

Presenta

tion

Small Prey and 

Temperature Jointly 

Limit Maximum Size of 

Rainbow Trout: Insights 

from a Drift-Foraging 

Bioenergetics Model

August 18, 

2015

Dodrill, M. J., C. B. 

Yackulic, and T. A. 

Kennedy. 2015. Small 

Prey and Temperature 

Jointly Limit Maximum 

Size of Rainbow 

Trout: Insights from a 

Drift-Foraging 

Bioenergetics Model. 

American Fisheries 

Society National 

Meeting: Portland, 

Oregon, USA.

Presenta

tion

Small Prey and 

Temperature Jointly 

Limit Maximum Size of 

Rainbow Trout: Insights 

from a Drift-Foraging 

Bioenergetics Model

Oct. 7, 

2015

Dodrill, M. J., C. B. 

Yackulic, T. A. Kennedy, 

and J.W. Hayes. 2015. 

Small Prey and 

Temperature Jointly 

Limit Maximum Size of 

Rainbow Trout: Insights 

from a Drift-Foraging 

Bioenergetics Model. 

Biannual Conference of 

Science on the Colorado 

Plateau: Flagstaff, 

Arizona, USA.

Presenta

tion

Seasonal and Spatial 

Patterns of Growth of 

Rainbow Trout in the 

Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon.

Aug. 18, 

2015

Yard, M., Korman, J. 

Walters, C., and 

Kennedy, T. 2015. 

Seasonal and Spatial 

Patterns of Growth of 

Rainbow Trout in the 

Colorado River in Grand 
74

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title

Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Canyon. 145th Annual 

Meeting, American 

Fisheries Society, 

Portland, OR. 

Presenta

tion

Movement, abundance, 

survival and growth of 

rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon.

Oct. 7, 

2015

Yard, M.D., and Korman, 

J. 2015. Movement, 

abundance, survival and 

growth of rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon. 13th

Biennial Conference of 

Science and 

Management, on the 

Colorado Plateau and 

Southwest Region. 

Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $370,200 $6,800 $91,000 $190,000 $0 $69,502 $727,502 

Actual

Spent $364,398 $4,633 $47,794 $195,602 $0 $62,694 $675,121 

(Over)/Under

Budget $5,802 $2,167 $43,206 ($5,602) $0 $6,808 $52,381 

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $65,000, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Didn't buy all planned equipment this FY.

Project 9 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total
75

Project 10: Where does the Glen Canyon Dam Rainbow Trout Tailwater Fishery End? –

Integrating Fish and Channel Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam

Program Manager 

(PM) Ted Melis Investigator(s) (I) Ted Melis, USGS, GCMRC

Dan Buscombe, USGS, 

GCMRC

Mike Yard, USGS, GCMRC

Josh Korman, EcoMetric 

Research

Paul Grams, USGS, GCMRC

Tom Gushue, USGS, GCMRC

Email tmelis@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7282

SUMMARY 

Introduction

In FY15, scientists from Project 10 collected all of the acoustic data, bed imagery, and shoreline 

imagery that was described in the FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan (TWP) during 2 downstream river 

trips (in April and July 2015), and additional short trips to Lees Ferry (in December 2014, and April, 

July and October 2015). Findings published or presented in the past year describe progress principally 

in the development of various methods to collect and process sidescan sonar imagery, and grain-size 

analysis of sediments. Below, we summarize specific accomplishments by project element. 

Summary of Progress by Project Element 

10.1. Refine Humminbird® Sidescan Sonar and Other Channel Mapping Methods to Support Fish 

and Foodbase Research – Daniel Buscombe, Daniel Hamill, Ted Melis, Michael Yard

The purpose of the 10.1 element of this project is to complete sidescan sonar mapping/imaging 

methods. An additional purpose of this project is to finalize a protocol for sidescan data collection. This 

monitoring involves collection and analysis of data, and algorithm development for determining 

changes in the areal extents of sand and gravel bed surface sediment types using low-cost, easy-to-use 

sidescan sonar technology, where drifting benthic organisms and spawning trout are monitored in Glen 

and Marble Canyon study segments.

We have published two manuscripts on research and development of new methods for using 

Humminbird® sidescan sonar instruments for imaging channel-bed sediment type and sediment 

changes in channel margin settings to support aquatic resource monitoring [Refs. 1 and 2]. There is one 

more article detailing technical advances in data processing from low-cost sidescan sonar, authored by 

Buscombe and proposed for 2016 [Ref. 4]. There is one article on evaluation of bed substrate 

classifications using sidescan sonar, authored by Hamill and others, proposed for late 2016 or early 

2017 [5].

Specifically, the following objectives have been met:

• We have defined protocols for the best use of sidescan sonar to quantify spatial area of sand and 
76

gravel bed sediments of the Colorado River channel

• We have developed completely or partially supervised bed sediment classification algorithms 

using existing sidescan data, at high resolution with continuous coverage, based on calibrated 

echo strengths and texture (spatial pattern) of echoes [Refs 1 and 2]

• Initial validation of these methods using concurrent video observations and sediment 

classifications based on multibeam backscatter (where available) is complete, and a systematic 

validation is in progress [Refs 1, 5, and 9]

• We have developed the computational advances necessary for correcting a boat-mounted 

sidescan sonar transducer for yaw instabilities (yaw) [Ref 4]. Correcting for heave, roll, pitch 

and roll, and evaluating the effects on sidescan sonar image quality, using data collected in 

Upper Marble Canyon in 2013 and eastern Grand Canyon in 2014, is pending

• We have evaluated the sensitivities in corrected geo-referenced sidescan amplitudes to 

uncertainties in attenuation due to sediment or gradients in sediment concentration, transducer 

location and boat heading, with a publication pending [Ref 4]

• We have developed the computational means by which sidescan can be corrected for bed slope 

effects when bed bathymetry is available, with a publication pending [Ref 4]

The evaluation of the automated substrate classification technique necessitates other techniques and 

developments associated with Project 3. The following relevant advances made there are summarized 

below (see the annual report for Project 10 for more details):

• The continuing refinement and application of the acoustic bed-sediment classification method 

using Multi Beam Echo Sounder (MBES)

• The theoretical and computational development of acoustic methods for classification of bed 

sediments using MBES backscatter data 

• The development of a new underwater camera system that will enable us to collect better 

underwater imagery for the purposes of calibrating and validating acoustic bed sediment 

classification methods for complex sediment mixtures (e.g. sand and gravel, gravel and 

boulders, sediment and vegetation, etc).

• The ongoing development an acoustic method by which to detect and classify submerged 

vegetation. To that end, we conducted fieldwork in Glen Canyon in December 2014 and again 

in October 2015 to collect concurrent sonar and underwater video data, in order to establish a 

baseline map of submerged vegetation. The acoustic method looks promising and will enable 

large-scale mapping of benthic vegetation, which is a dominant control on the food base in Glen 

Canyon.

10.2. Collecting New Channel-Bed Humminbird® Sidescan Sonar and Digital Channel Margin 

Imagery, and Analyzing Channel-Margin Geometry, and Shoreline Responses to Flow Variation 

using Channel Map Data to Support Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout and Juvenile Humpback Chub 

Research – Ted Melis, Tom Gushue, Daniel Buscombe, Daniel Hamill, Mike Yard, Paul Grams, Josh 

Korman 

Element 10.2. of this project has 5 key objectives which are summarized below:

1. Use of Glen Canyon Channel Map to Support Aquatic Modeling Research - Project 3 

element 3.2, channel topographic and bed-sediment type map for Glen Canyon, data 

collected in 2015 will be used with flow model (Project 5) to support primary production 

model, and assessment of channel margins and shorelines in task 3, below,

2. Document Geometry of Glen Canyon Channel Margins and Grain Size – in 2015-16, the 

proportion of low-angle channel margins (less than 11 degree slopes) known to be used by 
77

juvenile trout in Glen Canyon,

3. Document Geometry of Marble and eastern Grand Canyon Channel Margins – using 

existing channel data from previously mapped segments of Marble and Eastern Grand 

Canyon within NO study sites, we will estimate the proportion of low-angle channel 

margins (less than 11 degrees) for comparison with results from task #3 above,

4. Determining the Time-Varied Proportion of Sand and Gravel in Deeper Channel – through 

use of new and existing channel-map data, we will estimate the time-varied spatial 

distributions (2012-16) of sand and gravel areas on the Colorado River bed surface that may 

support rainbow trout spawning in NO study sites 1 - 4b,

5. Determining Time-Varied Proportion of Channel Margin Types in NO Study Sites – to 

assess possible influences on fish catch rates in NO study reaches #1 - 4b between 2012-16, 

associated with changing shoreline and near-shore sand deposits (low elevation eddy and 

lower channel sandbars) that may result from tributary sand inputs combined with high flow 

dam operations.

Sidescan sonar and shoreline imagery was collected in NO reach #1 in December 2014, and April, July 

and October 2015. Sidescan sonar and shoreline imagery was collected in NO reaches #2, 3, and 4 in 

April and July 2015. Additional data collection in support of Project 10 was carried out by members of 

Project 3. This data collection included (see the annual report for Project 3):

• In May 2014, 19.7 of the 27.4 miles (72%) of river channel that comprise lower Marble Canyon 

and eastern Grand Canyon (RM 61 to 87) were mapped. Almost the entire channel was imaged 

using sidescan sonar.

• In November 2014 (and various short trips throughout 2015), the river channel in Glen Canyon 

(RM -15 to 0) was mapped in its entirety.

• In December 2014, acoustic data and underwater video was collected along transects in a 

control reach in Glen Canyon above and below -4 mile bar. The transects were repeated again 

in October 2015.

A summary of analyses in support on the above objectives carried out in FY15 is below:

• We have begun to evaluate changes in distributions of bed deposits along NO sampled 

shorelines between 2013 and 2015, using sidescan imagery,

• We have documented surficial grain size distributions of gravel bars associated with fish 

monitoring shorelines using digital images collected at approximately the 8,000 ft3

/s shoreline 

elevation at each sample site. Size distributions have been determined and these data have been 

evaluated to identify longitudinal trends in grain size along channel margins used by trout 

between GCD and Lees Ferry [Ref. 6], 

• The new grain size data on coarse-sediment deposits throughout the Glen Canyon segment 

(island and channel-margin bars between 6,000 and 8,000 cfs flow stage elevations) were 

presented at the 13th Biennial Colorado Plateau Conference in October 2015 by Crouch et al.),

• Preliminary analysis of gravel grain size throughout Glen Canyon indicates a fining in gravels 

of lateral bar between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry, and there is a poor correlation 

between gravel grain size and rainbow trout spawning activity (redds data from RTELSS 

monitoring) – poster available upon request,

• Longitudinal patterns in median river temperature and turbidity along the Colorado River 

between Lees Ferry and the Little Colorado River were also evaluated relative rainbow trout 

abundance and condition, and these preliminary observations were reported in April 2015 to the 

Technical Workgroup (see presentation slides from that meeting),

• A 2D flow model for all of Glen Canyon has been completed and validated by the CA Water 
78

Science Center (see annual report for Project 5),

• Preliminary results of sand and gravel areas on the Colorado River bed surface that may support 

rainbow trout spawning in NO study sites 1 - 4b, using sidescan sonar data.

The preliminary USGS report in 2015 on slope analyses of existing 2004 & 2009 full-channel 

topography of Glen Canyon related to proportion of low and high-angle channel margins (lead: Melis 

and Gushue) has been delayed, owing to staffing changes (Melis taking a position at SBSC as deputy 

director, and Gushue losing his GS-9 Geographer technical support).

10.3. Integrated Time Series Analysis of Physical Channel Mapping, Quality-of Water, and Natal 

Origins of Rainbow Trout and Juvenile Humpback Chub Catch and Diet Data – Ted Melis, Mike 

Yard, Josh Korman, Daniel Buscombe

Element 10.3. has one objective: Synthetic Analysis of Rainbow Trout Catch and Physical Data –

Integrating, in 2017, five years of physical (segment-scale channel geometry, changes in areal bed 

surface sand coverage, and variations in flow patterns, total suspended sediment flux and water 

temperature) and biological (the aquatic food base, in terms of invertebrate drift) and rainbow trout 

responses; analyses developed through an integration workshop approach. There are no deliverables 

associated with this element FY15.

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Project Element 10.1 – Refine Humminbird® Sidescan Sonar and Other Channel Mapping 

Methods to Support Fish and Foodbase Research

Data

Data from 3 years of 

sidescan imaging in 

Glen Canyon

FY 15 Jan. 2016 --

Will be presented at 

Jan. 2016 reporting 

meeting. 

Report

Manuscript on 

research and 

development of new 

methods for using 

sidescan sonar 

instruments for 

imaging channel-bed 

sediment type and 

sediment changes in 

channel margin 

settings to support 

aquatic resource 

monitoring

FY15 September 

2015

Publication: [1] and 

additional publication 

[2]

Project Element 10.2 – Collecting New Channel-Bed Humminbird® Sidescan Sonar and 
79

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Digital Channel Margin Imagery, and Analyzing Channel-Margin Geometry, and Shoreline 

Responses to Flow Variation using Channel Map Data to Support Natal Origins of Rainbow 

Trout and Juvenile Humpback Chub Research

Report

Preliminary USGS 

report in 2015 on 

slope analyses of 

existing 2004 & 2009 

full-channel 

topography of Glen 

Canyon related to 

proportion of low and 

high-angle channel 

margins (Melis and 

Gushue)

FY15 March 

2016

Delayed. Report in 

preparation.

Data and 

report

New topographic and 

channel-bed sediment 

type maps collected in 

2015 and proposed to 

be available for further 

analyses by 2016

FY16 November 

2016

Data collected, 

processing started. 

Map/report on 

schedule

Project Element 10.3 – Integrated Time Series Analysis of Physical Channel Mapping, Qualityof Water, and Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout and Juvenile Humpback Chub Catch and Diet 

Data

No FY15 products. Data collected and 

processed on schedule.
80

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $123,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $17,518 $146,018 

Actual

Spent $86,472 $1,096 $425 $65,393 $0 $13,958 $167,345 

(Over)/Under

Budget $37,028 $3,904 ($425) ($65,393) $0 $3,560 ($21,327)

To other

USGS Centers Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs and increased cooperative agreement costs due to sending funding to Utah State University 

for student rather than USGS employee. Also, the cooperative agreement was front loaded so FY16 & FY17 costs 

will be lower.

Project 10 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements
81

Project 11: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis of Riparian Vegetation, Landform 

Change and Aquatic-Terrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities

Program Manager 

(PM) Barbara Ralston Principal Investigator(s) (PI)

Barb Ralston, USGS, GCMRC

Daniel Sarr, USGS, GCMRC

Joel Sankey, USGS, GCMRC

Paul Grams, USGS, GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, USGS, 

GCMRC

Ted Kennedy, USGS, GCMRC

Jeff Muehlbauer, USGS, 

GCMRC

David Merritt, USFS

Patrick Shafroth, USGS, Fort 

Collins

Joe Hazel, NAU

Emily Palmquist, USGS, 

GCMRC

Laura Cagney, NAU

Todd Chaudhry, NPS

Dustin Perkins, NPS

John Spence, NPS

Email bralston@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7389

SUMMARY 

Goals and Objectives FY15–17

Riparian vegetation affects physical processes and biological interactions along the channel

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The presence and expansion of riparian vegetation promotes

bank stability, diminishes the magnitude of scour and fill during floods, and has a role in wildlife

habitat and recreational values. This project utilizes annual field measurements and digital imagery 

for integrated monitoring of changes in vegetation assessed within a hydro-geomorphic context. 

Research elements of this project utilize the monitoring data to explore the utility of plant responseguilds to probabilistically evaluate and assess wildlife habitat, and integrate the response guilds with 

a 22-year topographic survey record for retrospective analyses of topographic change of 20 

sandbars.

This project builds upon accomplishments associated with the FY13–14 Work Plan, provides 

information that support stakeholder needs as identified by guiding documents developed by the 

Adaptive Management Program, and furthers our understanding of the role of riparian vegetation in 

ecosystem processes in a regulated river ecosystem.

The objectives and elements of this monitoring and research project are:

1. Measurement and analysis of plant cover and species presence to assess change as related

to the geomorphic setting, elevation above the channel, and flow regime (Project Element

11.1)
82

2. Mapping changes in woody vegetation at the landscape scale through image processing,

classification, and analysis (Project Element 11.2)

3. Utilizing vegetation response-guilds for integrated research of sandbars and riparian

vegetation (Project Element 11.3)

4. Use multiple sampling approaches and historic data sets to quantify the strength of

aquatic-terrestrial linkages and the relative importance of vegetation change and aquatic

production in driving the population dynamics of a subset of the terrestrial fauna (Project

Element 11.4).

5. A review and assessment of nonnative plant control and native plant restoration efforts

along regulated segments of the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers (Project Element 11.5).

Project Element 11.1. Ground-based Vegetation Monitoring

Objectives

• To annually collect vegetation data (presence, cover) within a geomorphic and hydrologic 

framework downstream of Glen Canyon Dam.

• To use the traits of the plants found to identify plant response-guilds.

• Data and results are collected and described in a manner that can be utilized by multiple 

stakeholders for monitoring approaches, use by Tribal stakeholders, and for use in basinwide riparian vegetation monitoring programs overseen by the National Park Service’s 

Northern Colorado Plateau Network Inventory and Monitoring Program.

Activities that support monitoring

Annual vegetation sampling trips in 2015 occurred in Glen Canyon in August and Grand Canyon in 

late September. Data collection consisted of 1m2 plots that quantified plant species cover. Plots were 

set within a hydro-geomorphic setting [(sandbar, channel margin, debris fan) and stratified by the 

fluctuating zone (<25,000 ft3

/s), active floodplain (25,000-45,000 ft3/s), and inactive floodplain 

(>45,000 ft3

/s)].

Summary of Progress

Plot sampling that was coincident with sandbar monitoring (Project 3) occurred in late 

September/early October of 2015. Plot sampling for vegetation at other sites occurred in early 

August 2015 in Glen Canyon. A Grand Canyon portion that sampled random sites was only partially 

completed in August 2015. Plot data from the long-term monitoring sandbars will be used to provide 

vegetation cover metrics, as well as be used as a validation data set for models of guild occurrence 

probabilities. The data from all trips in 2015 are being entered. Data summaries for 2014 are 

included in figures in this report. Summaries for 2013–2015 will be available in January 2016. 

A manuscript describing the process used to identify flow-response guilds is in development with a 

draft in review by December 2015. Delays associated with vegetation response-guild identification 

are attributed to the delayed hiring and the tragic loss of Daniel Sarr. Collaborators are in the process 

of completing the manuscript developed by Dr. Sarr for review and publication. We anticipate 

developing posters for the January Annual Reporting Meeting that illustrate the status of vegetation 
83

based on plot sampling and the response-guild development. The latter will include the development 

of exceedance probability curves for each identified guild. 

Other efforts related to monitoring include:

• The development of a monitoring protocol for ground-based sampling (FY15, Project 

11.1) to be submitted for review in December 2015.

• Using the plot data to develop a vegetation community classification that can be used in 

the vegetation mapping effort also scheduled for FY15–17 (Element 11.2). 

Highlights from the data collected include: 

• Collaborations with NPS Inventory and Monitoring Network were established and sharing of 

methods and practices continues.

• General metrics of total foliar cover, woody cover, and non-native cover, each divided into 

three river segments and three hydrologic zones (Tables 1-3) provide details about where 

exotic species are most numerous, the status of cover among hydrologic zones, and how 

cover varies throughout the river corridor. Though these summary data are generated 

annually, general patterns of change will be analyzed on a 5-year basis. For woody 

vegetation, this 5-year summary information can be used to validate information observed 

from landscape scale vegetation monitoring (Element 11.2).

Information summarized from the 2014 sampling efforts include:

• Total percent foliar cover in 2014 was lowest in the Eastern Grand Canyon segment of the 

Colorado River. Among hydrologic zones, the active floodplain (>25,000 and <45,000 cfs) 

had the greatest foliar cover across river segments with Marble and Western Grand Canyon 

having comparable mean percent cover values (fig. 1). The active channel in Western Grand 

Canyon (<25,000 cfs) had the greatest variability in total cover among the river segments, 

possibly associated with Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon).

• Among geomorphic features (channel margins, debris fans, sandbars), total foliar cover was 

generally greater on channel margins (fig. 2). Mean cover on channel margins was greater in 

Marble Canyon and Western Grand Canyon compared to Eastern Grand Canyon. 

• The mean percentage of woody cover among hydrologic zones followed a similar pattern of 

total foliar cover where cover was greatest within the active floodplain (fig. 3). Among the 

river segments, the mean percent cover of woody vegetation was greatest in the Marble 

Canyon segment, while the percent cover in Eastern and Western Grand Canyon segments 

were more similar to each other. Mean percent cover of woody vegetation in the active 

channel was low and approximately the same across river segments.

• The mean percent cover of woody vegetation was generally greatest on debris fans followed 

by channel margins (fig. 4). Woody vegetation cover on sandbars was greatest in the Marble 

Canyon segment.

• Exotic species cover was greatest in Western Grand Canyon and within this river segment, 

mean cover was similar across hydrologic zones (fig. 5). 

• Within Western Grand Canyon, mean cover of non-native species was greatest on channel 

margins (fig. 6).

• Cynodon dactylon and Bromus rubens were the two most frequently encountered species in 
84

plots in 2014 (Table 1, fig 7). Woody species frequently encountered in the active channel 

are coyote willow (Salix exigua) and saltcedar (Tamarix sp.).

Information that vegetation monitoring provides to the stakeholders

The monitoring approach that segments the river corridor into three sections provides stakeholders 

with general plant trends with distance downstream: treating the river corridor as a single river 

segment diminishes the ability to view trends across the river corridor. Frequency data (Table 1) 

informs stakeholders about which species may dominate the landscape. If particular species are 

frequently encountered but also are less desirable, then these species may become the focus of a 

management action. Frequency information provides a gauge of how species occurrence may 

change over time. The segmentation of the river also helps to identify areas that may be targeted for 

management actions. For example, camelthorn (Alhagi maurorum) comes into the river corridor 

from the Little Colorado River, but our data (Table 1) indicate that it is more frequently encountered 

in the Western Grand Canyon. Crews that may go to sandbars to remove camelthorn may need to 

focus their efforts in Western Grand Canyon than within Eastern Grand Canyon. Alternatively, 

removal of camelthorn in Eastern Grand Canyon if it is has been a focused effort, may be showing 

success. In a similar vein, coyote willow (Salix exigua) is a native species that was frequently 

encountered in Marble Canyon and Eastern Grand Canyon, but less frequently in Western Grand 

Canyon. The distribution of this species may be of interest to tribal stakeholders. The system-wide 

sampling with river segmentation (Marble Canyon, Eastern Grand Canyon and Western Grand 

Canyon) provides stakeholders a sense of how the river as a whole and each river segment is 

changing over time (Table 1, figs 1-7).

Knowing where species occur along a disturbance/hydrologic gradient (e.g., daily inundation vs. 

potentially inundated by an HFE vs. never inundated) also informs managers about the efforts that 

may be required to affect changes in vegetation and how vegetation may respond to changing 

hydrology. If the Active Channel (AC) shows increases in woody vegetation over time this may be 

an indication of reduced monthly volumes or decrease fluctuation (i.e., reduced disturbance) 

resulting in woody vegetation expansion. The vegetation plot data from the long-term monitoring 

sandbar sites can be used to assess woody vegetation expansion or decrease within the active 

channel, because they are sampled yearly and there is reliable stage discharge information for each 

sandbar. Woody vegetation expansion into the active channel has implications for available 

campable area. The type of woody vegetation among hydrologic zones also has implications for 

wildlife habitat in terms of structural diversity. If the most frequently encountered plants in the AF 

are shrubs or grasses (e.g., arrowweed or sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) and less often 

trees, then bird habitat may change and the bird assemblage also change. The lateral segmentation of 

the riverbank based on hydrology and the longitudinal segmentation of the river provides 

stakeholders with two-dimensional information about the increase or decline of herbaceous and 

woody species that can be used in vegetation management decisions. 

Project Element 11.2. Periodic landscape scale vegetation mapping and analysis using 

Remotely Sensed Data

Objectives

• To produce an accurate classification of vegetation from the imagery acquired with the
85

remote sensing overflight in 2013.

• To quantify stability and changes in vegetation composition from the classifications of 

vegetation completed for imagery acquired in 2002 to 2013.

• To cross-walk the composition of vegetation in the image-based classes from 2013 and 2002 

with composition of response guilds identified in Element 11.1.

• To detect and map tamarisk leaf beetle effects for remotely sensed vegetation canopies from 

overflight imagery from 2009 to 2013.

Summary of Progress

The 2013 image mosaic process has been completed and as of November 2015, the vegetation 

classification described in Objective 1 is underway. We anticipate reporting on the initial 

classification of total vegetation for select reaches at the Annual Reporting Meeting in January 2016. 

A manuscript focused on work completed in Glen Canyon NRA for Objective 4 was submitted 

October 2015 to the journal Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing for review. The map 

dataset of tamarisk defoliation in Glen Canyon for Objective 4 will be published through the USGS 

in conjunction with the journal manuscript. The thesis (Ash Bedford – NAU) focused on Objective 4 

will likely be defended in spring 2016. A Ph.D. candidate at the University of Arizona completed 

vegetation analysis of 2009 imagery. The methodology used for classification is described in a 

publication submitted to the journal Remote Sensing of Environments in August, 2015 for review. 

These data add another vegetation class data set for change analysis at the landscape scale. 

Project Element 11.3 Influence of sediment and vegetation feedbacks on the evolution of 

sandbars in Grand Canyon since 1991 (FY15–17)

Objectives

• To understand the interplay between hydrology, vegetation and sediment dynamics among 

20 sandbars for a 23-year period (1991 to 2013) by using long-term sandbar monitoring data, 

instantaneous discharge record, sediment transport information, intermittent vegetation 

sampling data, riparian plant response guilds, and aerial and oblique repeat photography.

Summary of Progress

Progress in this project has included discussions with key researchers in Project A to determine how 

they are approaching element 3, which is complementary with this project. We are identifying 

historic data that can be used to identify vegetation on a surface for a given year. We are also 

developing exceedance probability curves for species that can be applied on subsequent years to 

identify trajectories for vegetation change. This information can be used to create a rule based 

approach for predicting vegetation change. Work is focused on a single sandbar to determine the 

overall steps required to reconstruct vegetation change and subsequently understand sandbar change.

Project Element 11.4 Linking dam operations to changes in riparian biodiversity – the 

potential significance of vegetation change and insect emergence

Objectives

• Build a strong conceptual basis for understanding and analyzing linkages between flow
86

management and riparian biodiversity in the Colorado River ecosystem

• Determine the degree to which populations of terrestrial animals respond to spatial and

temporal variation in aquatic insect emergence along the Colorado River, with an initial 

focus on the Glen and upper Marble Canyons.

• Identify whether long-term changes in vegetation have influenced populations of terrestrial 

consumers, particularly birds and terrestrial insects in Glen Canyon.

• To the extent possible, determine the links between terrestrial fauna and vegetation-flow 

response guilds.

Summary of Progress

Progress in this element was substantial, particularly given the limited funding available for this 

project element in FY15. We worked with John Sabo, Arizona State University, an expert in 

aquatic-terrestrial linkages, to identify a graduate student that will lead work associated with this 

element and ASU is contributing additional funds to support that student. In collaboration with the 

student, we have begun to outline sampling to be undertaken in the spring and summer of 2016. 

Frequent meetings among project team members as well as re-analysis of historical data, especially 

bird and insect data, gave us a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of these data and 

a better sense of which aspects of the larger proposed project we should focus on given funding 

constraints. Based on the efforts, we plan to focus primarily on questions 3-5 in FY16 and 17. The 

goals of this project remain to focus first on Glen Canyon and Upper Marble Canyon and then, 

based on learning in these areas, implement similar research downstream in conjunction with citizen 

scientists or other interested parties.

Project Element 11.5. Science Review Panel of Successes and Challenges in Non-native 

Vegetation Control in

the Colorado River and Rio Grande Watersheds

Objectives

• To convene a science expert review panel composed of natural resource managers and 

riverine research scientists to examine successes and challenges in non-native vegetation 

control in the Colorado River and Rio Grande watersheds, and to seek recommendations 

from that group as to how to plan a scientifically-based riparian management control 

program applicable to the Colorado River ecosystem in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons.

Summary of Progress

A 2-day workshop was held in Flagstaff, AZ from June 23-25. The workshop approached restoration 

in a multi-scale framework (local to watershed scale) in the assessment of restoration efforts. 

Presenters had experience in the upper and lower Colorado River Basin as well as the upper and 

lower Rio Grande Basins. Presenters were encouraged to submit an extended abstract that will be 

compiled into an Open-File Report (OFR) and electronically accessible to the public. A few 

abstracts remain to be revised and submitted for subsequent copy editing and publication. An 

anticipated publication date is Spring 2016. Included in the OFR will be recommendations elicited 

from the participants and a list of accessible resources. 
87

A second workshop with resource managers from Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon was proposed to

discuss restoration/revegetation approaches in FY16, pending availability of funds for travel.
88

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

DataSeries 

Report

Riparian Vegetation 

Distribution and Cover 

Patterns From Lees Ferry to 

Pearce Ferry for years 2012 

-2015

Draft 

Jan 2016

TBD May 2016 Data from 2012-14 

are entered. Data 

entry for 2015 

completed by Jan 

2015. Delayed 

analysis and decision 

about format and 

venue for releasing 

information- report 

vs. web product.

Present

ations

Plant Guild and Functional 

Group Frameworks in 

Riparian and Wetland 

Management and 

Restoration: Models and 

Applications

May/June 

2015

Presentation and 

organized symposium 

at Society of Wetland 

Scientists in 

Providence, R.I.

Journal

Developing Riparian 

Vegetation-Flow Response 

Guilds for the for the 

Colorado River Ecosystem 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona

Draft 

anticipate

d Dec 

2015

May 2016

Unexpected loss of 

lead author.

Journal

Matrix of plant-ecological 

traits

Extra 

product

No date

submitted 

Dec 2015 August 

2016

Lead author E. 

Palmquist. This is a 

manuscript that is a 

outgrowth of the 

guild identification 

project.

Journal

Applications of guilds for 

riparian management in a 

regulated river

Extra 

product 

No date

Draft 

anticipate 

May 2016

Lead author D. 

Merritt (USFS). This 

is a manuscript that is 

a outgrowth of the 

guild identification 

project.

Journal

Remote sensing of tamarisk 

biomass, insect herbivory, 

and defoliation: novel 

methods and applications in 

the Grand Canyon region, 

Draft 

submitted 

October 

2015 to 

Photogra

March 

2017

Lead author T. 

Sankey (NAU)
89

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Arizona, USA mmetric 

Engineeri

ng and 

Remote 

Sensing

Journal

A new remote sensing 

approach to map riparian 

vegetation of the Colorado 

River Ecosystem, Grand 

Canyon area

Draft 

submitted 

August 

2015 to 

Remotes 

Sensing of 

Environm

ents

Spring 

2016

U. AZ manuscript and 

dissertation

Journal

Riparian vegetation, 

Colorado River, and 

climate--Five decades of 

spatiotemporal dynamics in 

the Grand Canyon with 

river regulation

Oct 

2013

From 

FY13-14 

plan

Published 

August 

2015

Sankey, J.B., Ralston, 

B.E., Grams, P.E., 

Schmidt, J.C., and 

Cagney, L.E., 2015, 

Riparian vegetation, 

Colorado River, and 

climate--Five decades 

of spatiotemporal 

dynamics in the 

Grand Canyon with 

river regulation: 

Journal of 

Geophysical Research 

Biogeosciences, 

online, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1

002/2015JG002991.

Dataset

USGS 2015 J Sankey 

Riparian Vegetation and 

Colorado River June 2015

https://www.scienceb

ase.gov/catalog/item/

5575b3c1e4b08f9309

d4bafc

Openfile 

Report

Case Studies of Riparian 

and Watershed Restoration 

in the Southwestern United 

States: Principles, 

Challenges, and Successes

Draft 

JuneSept 

2015

Draft for 

review 

Nov. 2015

Publicatio

n April 

2016

Lead author B. 

Ralston.

Workshop was held 

in June 2015 instead 

of February which 

delayed development 
90

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

of draft OFR.

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $241,800 $8,000 $5,500 $126,000 $6,700 $38,585 $426,585 

Actual

Spent $217,466 $9,848 $6,722 $108,460 $0 $35,160 $377,656 

(Over)/Under

Budget $24,334 ($1,848) ($1,222) $17,540 $6,700 $3,425 $48,929 

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $54,800, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Project 11 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total
91

Figure 1. Mean percent cover of total cover by hydrologic zone. Figure 2. Mean percent cover of total cover by geomorphic feature.
92

Figure 3. Mean percent cover of woody vegetation by hydrologic zone. Figure 4. Mean percent cover of woody vegetation by geomorphic 

feature.
93

Figure 5. Mean percent cover of non-native vegetation by hydrologic zone. Figure 6. Mean percent cover of non-native vegetation by 

geomorphic feature.
94

Figure 7. Bar graph of frequently encountered plant species in sample plots from Lees Ferry to Lake Mead in August 2014. Frequencies are for the 

whole river length (Overall), river segments (Marble, Eastern and Western Grand Canyon).
95

Table 1. Ten most frequently encountered species in sample plots from Lees Ferry to Lake Mead, AZ. Frequencies are for the whole river 

length (Overall), river segments and hydrologic zones

Overall

Marble 

Canyon

Eastern 

Grand 

Canyon

Western 

Grand 

Canyon

Active 

Channel

Active 

Floodplain

Inactive 

Floodplain

Bromus 

rubens 0.66

Baccharis 

salicina 0.96

Bromus 

rubens 0.74

Cynodon 

dactylon 0.91

Cynodon 

dactylon 0.54

Cynodon 

dactylon 0.52

Bromus 

rubens 0.61

Tamarix

spp. 0.61

Equisetum

×ferrissii 0.83

Sporobolus

cryptandrus 0.63 Tamarix spp. 0.60

Equisetum

×ferrissii 0.48

Tamarix

spp. 0.35

Cynodon 

dactylon 0.42

Cynodon 

dactylon 0.58

Bromus 

rubens 0.79

Aristida 

arizonica 0.63

Bromus 

rubens 0.53

Baccharis 

emoryi 0.36

Baccharis 

salicina 0.34

Bromus 

diandrus 0.39

Equisetum 

hyemale 0.50

Agrostis 

stolonifera 0.79 Tamarix spp. 0.56

Alhagi 

maurorum 0.51

Euthamia 

occidentalis 0.28

Bromus 

diandrus 0.33

Tamarix

spp. 0.38

Baccharis 

salicina 0.49

Artemisia 

ludoviciana 0.79

Baccharis 

salicifolia 0.56

Baccharis 

sarothroides 0.49

Baccharis 

salicifolia 0.25

Alhagi 

maurorum 0.32

Aristida 

arizonica 0.37

Bromus 

diandrus 0.47

Tamarix

spp. 0.71

Cynodon 

dactylon 0.56

Aristida 

arizonica 0.47

Alhagi 

maurorum 0.25

Bromus 

rubens 0.31

Sporobolus 

flexuosus 0.35

Aristida 

arizonica 0.43

Bromus 

diandrus 0.67

Sporobolus 

flexuosus 0.52

Baccharis 

salicifolia 0.47

Agrostis 

stolonifera 0.25

Pluchea 

sericea 0.29

Alhagi 

maurorum 0.23

Baccharis 

salicifolia 0.42

Euthamia 

occidentalis 0.63

Isocoma 

acradenia 0.41

Bromus 

diandrus 0.44 Salix exigua 0.22

Baccharis 

salicifolia 0.27

Isocoma 

acradenia 0.23

Sporobolus 

flexuosus 0.40

Salix 

exigua 0.63

Baccharis 

salicina 0.37

Equisetum 

hyemale 0.44

Melilotus 

officinale 0.19

Equisetum

×ferrissii 0.27

Sporobolus 

cryptandrus 0.22

Sporobolus 

cryptandrus 0.36

Salsola 

tragus 0.58

Alhagi 

maurorum 0.37

Pluchea 

sericea 0.42 Tamarix spp. 0.19

Baccharis 

sarothroide

s 0.20

Pluchea 

sericea 0.22
96

Project 12: Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Culturally-Important Plants in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem: A Pilot Study to Explore Relationships between Vegetation 

Change and Traditional Cultural Values

Program Manager 

(PM) Helen Fairley Investigator(s) (I) Helen Fairley (PI), USGS, GCMRC

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe

Tony Joe, Navajo Nation

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe

Daniel Sarr, USGS, GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, USGS, 

GCMRC

Email hfairley@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7285

SUMMARY 

Introduction

Project 12 aims to answer a single, broad research question: How have culturally-valued vegetation 

attributes of the riparian landscape of the Colorado River corridor changed since closure of Glen 

Canyon Dam, and how have those changes (whether partially or wholly due to dam operations) 

affected cultural resource values that are important to tribes? 

This overarching question has two components, and each requires a different approach; therefore 

Project 12 encompasses two elements with inter-related goals: 1) an assessment of changes in 

vegetation in the Colorado River corridor below Glen Canyon Dam that are relevant to some of the 

expressed cultural interests of Native American AMP tribes, and 2) an assessment of how those 

changes may have affected (either positively or negatively) culturally-important aspects of the 

landscape valued by these same groups. The primary objectives of the first element are three-fold: 1) 

engage tribes in a collaborative research effort to identify changes in the riparian ecosystem of the 

Colorado River corridor that may have affected or are affecting cultural values and resources that 

contribute to the identification of Grand Canyon as a Traditional Cultural Property; 2) compile and 

synthesize data about riparian vegetation and specific species of cultural importance to tribes from a 

variety of existing sources, including but not limited to previous GCES-era studies, existing 

GCMRC and tribal monitoring data, published articles, historical journals and oblique historical 

imagery, and 3) analyze these existing data to evaluate the distribution and comparative abundance 

of targeted (culturally-important) plant species in past decades throughout the river corridor 

landscape as compared with current conditions.

The second component of this project proposes to use the information obtained in Element 12.1 to 

develop culturally-appropriate methods for eliciting tribal perspectives about the changes that have 

occurred to the landscape and culturally-important important plant species and evaluate how those 

changes may have affected landscape values important to the tribes. Specific methods to be 

employed in project element 12.2 will be determined collaboratively with tribal participants after 

they have had a chance to review the results of Element 12.1 and have engaged in further discussion 

about possible future methodological approaches. Element 12.1 was initiated in the winter of FY15 

and is ongoing in the fall of 2015; thus, this report focuses on progress and accomplishments 

specifically related to Project Element 12.1.
97

First Workshop

On February 18-19, 2015, GCMRC hosted the first of two workshops planned for Project 12. As 

described in the original project proposal of the FY15–17 work plan, the purpose of this first 

workshop was to review and discuss the goals of the project, identify plant species of mutual interest 

to multiple tribes, identify work that has already been completed related to plant species of interest 

to the tribes, and discuss and refine methods for compiling and analyzing available data related to 

the targeted species for this pilot study. The workshop was well attended by representatives from the 

five AMP tribes, plus GCMRC vegetation program staff (Sarr, Palmquist, Ralston), staff from 

Grand Canyon National Park and the Bureau of Reclamation, and Dr. Larry Stevens from the 

Museum of Northern Arizona and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. During the workshop, 

GCMRC’s riparian ecologist (Sarr) reviewed data currently being collected for Project 11 and 

discussed some ways that these data could be analyzed to provide information relevant to tribal 

interests. Representatives from the Hualapai Tribe and Southern Paiute Consortium reviewed how 

they were monitoring vegetation change in the river corridor and how they currently use historical 

imagery in their monitoring programs to assess changes from tribal perspectives. Ralston presented 

information about the status and ecology of mesquite in the river corridor, while Stevens presented 

an overview of existing data on change in the distribution and abundance of Goodding Willow, plus 

an overview of the ecology of Phragmites. Fairley reviewed the goals and objectives of Project 12 

and presented a list of plant species from the river corridor that had been identified as being 

culturally-important to three or more AMP tribes. A discussion followed the presentation of this 

preliminary species list, and it was subsequently agreed that the 14 perennial riparian species that 

were of mutual interest to 3 or more AMP tribes was the appropriate list on which to focus the 

Project 12 pilot study (see Table 1.)

Table 1. Targeted riparian species of the Project 12 pilot study 

Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii)

Cottonwood (Populus fremonti)

Netleaf Hackberry (Celtis reticulata)

Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)

Coyote willow (Salix exigua)

Seep willow (Baccharis emoryi, B.salicifolia)

Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa)

Prince’s plume (Stanleya pinnata)

Arrowweed (Pluchea sericea)

Common reed (Phragmites australis)

Cattail (Typha sp.)

Horsetail (Equisetum sp.)

Dropseed (Sporobolus sp.)

Indian Rice Grass (Achnatherum hymenoids) 

Data Compilation and Analysis 
98

In spring 2015, using the input from the first workshop, Fairley began compiling existing data on the 

list of 13 targeted species, drawing upon a variety of existing information sources. Data sources 

included prior GCES-era and GCDAMP-sponsored research articles and reports, GCMRC and tribal 

monitoring program data, historical river runner journals, and repeat photographs of historical 

imagery from the Colorado River corridor in Glen and Grand Canyons. Working in collaboration 

with Project Co-lead Peter Bungart, Fairley and Bungart began researching the availability of 

historical imagery, starting with the collections of repeat photography housed at the Desert 

Laboratory Repeat Photography collection in Tucson, Arizona. Fairley quickly discovered that only 

a relatively small portion of the historical imagery planned for analysis in Project 12 had been 

previously scanned, analyzed and organized sufficiently to allow the proposed analysis to proceed 

immediately. Specifically, Fairley learned that only the historical photographs from the 1889–1890 

Stanton expedition and matches obtained by Robert Webb in 1990–1992 and 2010–2011 were 

sufficiently well-organized to allow the analysis to proceed without needing to invest considerable 

additional time and effort to scan the images and organize the associated files. For example, Fairley 

found that the photographs from the 1923 Birdseye expedition had not been systematically matched 

in most cases, nor scanned at sufficiently high resolution to permit field use; this created an 

unanticipated additional work load for the Project PIs which needed to be addressed before the 1923 

photographs could be matched in the field and analyzed for vegetation change. Furthermore, upon 

arriving in Tucson to begin the photographic analysis, Fairley learned that the entire Desert 

Laboratory Repeat Photography collection needed to be moved to a new location before the end of 

FY15; as a result, Fairley became temporarily side-lined with arranging for a new home for this 

historic photography collection and later, with helping to move the collection from Tucson to 

Flagstaff during the late summer of 2015. Fairley also arranged to hire an individual to scan and 

organize the Birdseye photographs and other historical photographs of the Grand Canyon so they 

could be matched and analyzed at a later date. Meanwhile, Bungart was able to obtain scans of many 

of the Birdseye expedition photographs through the USGS library archives in Denver. In addition to 

working with these two historical photography collections, in March 2015, Bungart and Fairley 

visited Grand Canyon National Park and sorted through historical images housed at the Division of 

Science and Resource Management and the Grand Canyon Study Collection, obtaining numerous 

low resolution scans of many river corridor imagers with the intention of matching them on future 

river trips in Grand Canyon. 

After identifying the whereabouts of historical photographs and assessing their condition and 

suitability for documenting vegetation changes, Fairley began applying analytical methods 

previously developed by Robert Webb (1996) to evaluate vegetation changes by comparing the 1890 

Stanton photos with 1990–1992 replicates and also comparing the 1990–1992 matches with 

duplicate images obtained in 2010–2011. The analysis identified whether the plants of interest to the 

tribes were present in any of the photographs, were located in the same areas as in the past, and 

whether their abundance had increased or decreased in each photograph using a simple ranked scale 

(e.g., no apparent increase/decrease, small increase or decrease (less than ~25% difference in 

numbers of individuals or total cover) or large increase or decrease (>25% difference). Fairley also 

kept track of changes in the context of where the plants occurred, noting any apparent physical 

changes to local context associated with observed plant changes (e.g., differences in presence or 

absence of sand deposits, evidence of debris flows or rock falls, changes in biological soil crust 

cover, etc.) By the end of September, 2015, a total of 128 historical photographs and a total of 256 

matches representing approximately a third of the river corridor (from river mile -15.0 through river 
99

mile 62) had been systematically evaluated. The analysis completed to date shows that low elevation 

riparian vegetation increased dramatically between 1889/1890 and the early 1990s, and that woody 

riparian shrubs -- specifically Baccharis sp. and Salix exigua—continued to increase significantly 

between the early 1990s and 2010–2011. Celtis reticulata increased between 1889/90 and the early 

1990s, but did not increase thereafter, while Salix gooddingii has decreased since 1889/90. It 

remains to be seen whether these preliminary observations hold up for the central and western 

reaches of Grand Canyon. 

In addition to working with the Desert Laboratory historical photograph collection, in spring 2015, 

Fairley visited the Marriott Library at the University of Utah and compiled observations about the 

presence of willow trees and other plant observations recorded by clients of pioneering river runner 

Norm Nevills between 1938 and 1948. In summer 2015, Bungart visited the University of Michigan 

library and obtained copies of the original 1938 journals of Elzada Clover, the first botanist to study 

plants along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. We intend for these historical observations to be 

integrated with the other sources of information as work on this project continues in FY16. 

August 2015 River Trip

In late August 2015, Fairley and Bungart, along with former Grand Canyon National Park botanist 

Melissa McMaster, accompanied GCMRC’s Project 11 vegetation monitoring trip, with the 

intention of matching photographs from the 1923 Birdseye expedition and analyzing vegetation 

change using these matched images. Due the tragic death of GCMRC ecologist Daniel Sarr on the 

third day of the trip, only 17 photographs were successfully relocated and matched before the trip 

was abruptly cancelled. Although we plan to complete this photo-matching work on future GCMRC 

river trips, it is unlikely that this work can be completed in time to include analysis results in the 

Project 12 pilot study. One unanticipated discovery that came to light during the August 2015 river 

trip was a previously undocumented inscription from the 1923 USGS expedition; this inscription 

appeared to mark a survey position and the location from which one of the 1923 photographs had 

been taken.
100

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Presentati

on

Changes in the 

Distribution and 

Abundance of 

Culturally-Important 

Plants in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem: A 

Pilot Study to Explore 

Relationships between 

Vegetation Change 

and Traditional 

Cultural Values. 

2/18/15

Fairley, H.C., Bungart, 

P., Joe, T., and Yeatts, 

M., 2015, Changes in 

the Distribution and 

Abundance of 

Culturally-Important 

Plants in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem: A Pilot 

Study to Explore 

Relationships between 

Vegetation Change and 

Traditional Cultural 

Values. Oral 

presentation at Project 

12 Workshop, Flagstaff, 

Arizona, February 18, 

2015.

Presentati

on

Changes in the 

Distribution and 

Abundance of 

Culturally-Important 

Plants in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem: A 

Pilot Study to Explore 

Relationships between 

Vegetation Change 

and Traditional 

Cultural Values. 

4/21/15

Fairley, H.C. 2015, 

Changes in the 

Distribution and 

Abundance of 

Culturally-Important 

Plants in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem: A Pilot 

Study to Explore 

Relationships between 

Vegetation Change and

Traditional Cultural 

Values. Oral 

presentation at Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

meeting, Phoenix, 

Arizona, April 21, 2015.

Presentati

on

Dam-induced changes 

to riparian ecosystems 

and associated 

traditional cultural 

values downstream of 

10/8/15

Fairley, H.C., 2015, 

Dam-induced changes to 

riparian ecosystems and 

associated traditional 

cultural values 
101

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title Due 

Date

Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expected Citations/Comments

Glen Canyon Dam, 

Arizona: a progress 

report on a pilot study 

integrating science 

and traditional 

ecological knowledge. 

downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam, Arizona: a 

progress report on a 

pilot study integrating 

science and traditional 

ecological knowledge. 

Oral presentation at the 

13th Biennial 

Conference of Science 

and Management on the 

Colorado Plateau, 

Flagstaff, Arizona, 

October 6, 2015.

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $19,600 $5,000 $2,000 $15,000 $0 $4,076 $45,676 

Actual

Spent $17,888 $2,176 $844 $0 $0 $2,850 $23,758 

(Over)/Under

Budget $1,712 $2,824 $1,156 $15,000 $0 $1,226 $21,918 

To other

USGS Centers Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $21,900, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Project 12 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements
102

Project 13: Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research

Program Manager 

(PM) Lucas Bair Investigator(s) (I) Lucas Bair, USGS, GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, USGS, 

GCMRC

John Duffield, Uni. Of 

Montana

Chris Neher, Uni. Of Montana

David Patterson, Uni. Of 

Montana

Michael Springborn, UC Davis

Craig Bond, Pardee RAND

Email lbair@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7362

SUMMARY 

Summary of FY15–17 Goals and Objectives

The overall objective of Project 13 is to identify recreational and tribal preferences for, and values 

of, downstream resources and evaluate how preference and value are influenced by Glen Canyon 

Dam (GCD) operations. In addition, Project 13 will integrate economic information with data from 

long-term and ongoing physical and biological monitoring and research studies led by the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to develop a decision support system that will 

improve the ability of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) to 

evaluate and prioritize management actions, monitoring and research.

Project 13 involves three related socioeconomic monitoring and research studies. These studies 

include: (13.1) evaluation of the impact of GCD operations on regional economic expenditures and 

economic values associated with angling in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA) 

downstream from GCD, and whitewater floating in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) that 

begins at Lees Ferry; (13.2) assessment of tribal preference for and value of downstream resources 

as impacted by GCD operations; and (13.3) development of decision methods, using economic 

metrics, to evaluate management actions and prioritize monitoring and research on resources 

downstream of GCD.

Monitoring/Survey Activities

Project Element 13.1

Angler sampling at Lees Ferry was initiated in the spring of 2015 in cooperation with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. Creel surveys involved intercepting anglers to obtain creel, name, and 

mailing address information at the boat ramp providing upstream access to Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area, walk-in access to the Colorado River above and below the confluence with the 
103

Paria River, and downstream of Lees Ferry including river access points Badger Creek Rapid and on 

the Navajo Nation north of Arizona State Highway 89A. Creel surveys are continuing into early 

FY16. 

Grand Canyon National Park private whitewater floater name and address information was collected 

from the National Park Service on October 8, 2015. The sample included 1,425 individuals who 

participated in whitewater trips in Grand Canyon National Park between September 2014 and 

August 2015. 

Project Element 13.2

Project element will be implemented in FY17. 

Project Element 13.3

Project element requires no monitoring or survey activities.

Progress Answering Science Questions

Project Element 13.1

Collection and development of Project 13.1 material for submittal to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and communication with GCDAMP stakeholders occurred late in FY14 and 

continued into FY15. Approval from OMB was received August 14, 2015. OMB approval initiated 

mailing of in-depth surveys to anglers in GCNRA and private whitewater floaters in GCNP. 

GCMRC and the National Park Service continue to work with the commercial outfitters to obtain 

commercial whitewater floater name and address information. Mailing of in-depth surveys will 

continue into calendar year 2016. Data entry and analysis will occur early in calendar year 2016. 

Manuscripts describing the study results, angler and whitewater floater preferences, regional 

expenditures, and economic values as affected by operation of GCD, will be completed in FY16 and 

FY17. 

Highlights from the ongoing data collection include: 

• Collaboration with Arizona Game and Fish Department was established and sharing of 

methods, practices, and creel survey continues.

Project Element 13.2

Project 13.2 is scheduled to be implemented in FY17. Opportunities to introduce and discuss details 

of Project 13.2 with Tribal representatives to the GCDAMP and Tribal staff were identified in 

FY15:

• A workshop was held in Flagstaff, AZ on February 20, 2015. The workshop initiated 

discussion of Project 13.2 with GCDAMP Technical Workgroup Tribal representatives, 

Lucas Bair from GCRMRC, and cooperators John Duffield and Chris Neher from the 

University of Montana. Lucas Bair and John Duffield presented on Project 13.2 and 

discussion followed. Additional workshops with GCMRC researchers, cooperators from the 

University of Montana and Tribal staff were proposed for FY16.

• Lucas Bair from GCMRC participated in the Tribal-Stakeholder river trip from July 21-27. 

Attendees included representatives to the GCDAMP including representatives from the 
104

Hualapai Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation, Southern, Paiute Consortium, and Hopi 

Tribe. The river trip provided an opportunity to discuss Project 13.2 and Tribal perspectives 

associated with resources downstream of GCD.

Project Element 13.3

Progress in this project has included collaboration between Lucas Bair and Charles Yackulic of 

GCMRC, Michael Springborn of UC Davis, Craig Bond of Pardee RAND, and Mathew Reimer of 

the UA Anchorage. A workshop was held in Flagstaff on July 16, 2015, which led to a draft 

bioeconomic model to identify the economically preferred management strategy for established 

nonnative fish, in relation to humpback chub survival. The draft model was reviewed by Carl 

Walters, Michael Runge and Josh Korman. Model development will continue through FY16, 1) 

identifying the importance of parameter uncertainty on the sensitivity of cost-effective outcomes in 

the bioeconomic model; 2) evaluating parameter uncertainty to aid in the identification of the value 

and prioritization of monitoring and research; and 3) demonstration of how modeling can prioritize 

future monitoring and research. Model development will continue in FY17 with incorporation of 

additional management variables and associated costs, such as trout management flows at GCD, to 

improve humpback chub survival, again identifying the most cost-effective management alternatives 

under different future scenarios.

Summary of Reports and Products

The Triennial Workplan for FY15–17 listed the following publications and related products from 

our Project 13 work:

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title

Due Date Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expecte

d

Citations/Comm

ents

Presentatio

ns

Investing in Conservation: 

Cost-effective adaptive 

management in the 

Colorado River Basin

November 

2014

L. Bair. 

Presentation at 

Upper Colorado 

River Basin 

Water 

Conference in 

Grand Junction, 

CO

Journal 

manuscript

Economic Value of 

Angling on the Colorado 

River at Lees Ferry: Using 

Secondary Data to Estimate 

Extra 

product no 

date

Draft 

submitted 

June 2015

FY 16 Lead author L. 

Bair. This is a 

manuscript that is 

an outgrowth of 
105

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title

Due Date Date 

Delivered

Date 

Expecte

d

Citations/Comm

ents

the Influence of 

Seasonality

Project 13.1

Journal 

manuscript

Bioeconomic modeling to 

evaluate and prioritize, 

monitoring, research and 

management alternatives 

published in peer reviewed 

literature.

FY 15-17 FY 16-

17

Lead author L. 

Bair. In 

preparation

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $118,800 $12,500 $1,000 $22,500 $0 $18,711 $173,511 

Actual

Spent $103,008 $4,767 $23,141 $15,000 $0 $18,298 $164,215 

(Over)/Under

Budget $15,792 $7,733 ($22,141) $7,500 $0 $413 $9,296 

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $11,800, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Contracted with one "Cooperator" rather than entering into a cooperative agreement and front loaded FY16 & FY17 

funding into contract.

Project 13 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total
106

Project 14: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Services and Support

Program Manager 

(PM) Tom Gushue Investigator(s) (I) Tom Gushue, USGS, GCMRC

Tim Andrews, USGS, 

GCMRC Email tgushue@usgs.gov

Telephone (928) 556-7370

SUMMARY 

Introduction

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) continues to play a critical role in nearly all of GCMRC’s 

science efforts and is prevalent in many of the projects proposed in the FY15–17 Triennial Work 

Plan (TWP). It is used across disciplines and is itself a powerful tool for integrating geospatial data 

collected by many different projects. The TWP has provided GCMRC an opportunity to develop a 

GIS project better designed to successfully function within GCMRC and meet the current and future 

needs of scientists, managers, and the public alike. Most work performed within this project falls 

within one of three main tenets: Geospatial Data Analysis, Geospatial Data Management, and 

Access to Geospatial Data Holdings. These concepts are not new, and have been a part of the 

GCMRC mission since its inception. This annual report affords us a chance to more clearly defines 

the work performed in each of these elements, how this work relates to individual science projects, 

and the GCMRC’s overall mission, and accomplishments made over the past year.

Summary of Progress by Project Element

14.1 Geospatial Data Analysis: Support to Science Projects

The GIS Project continued to support other science projects through geospatial data processing and 

analysis in FY15. As described in the TWP, this element of the GIS Project has defined linkages to 

other projects where a high level of GIS support would be required. Most GCMRC project usually 

required some level of GIS support, and this usually is in the form of database development, GIS 

layer development, and map outputs created for field use or for presentation and publication 

purposes. Below are a few more in-depth descriptions of GIS support provided to other GCMRC 

projects. 

GCMRC River Mile System

In FY15, the existing GCMRC River Mile System (2002) was updated to account for changes that 

have occurred in the Colorado River channel below river mile 260 due to a decrease in water levels 

at Lake Mead. For this section of river, the centerline and associated river mileage has been updated 

to match the Colorado River channel as it appears in GCMRC’s 2013 overflight imagery data. Very 

little change was noticeable between the two most recent overflight missions (2009 and 2013), and 

so it was determined that using the most recent (2013) would be the most appropriate choice. The 
107

updated river mile system was completed prior to the field season and made available to science 

efforts working in this section of river.

Project 6. Mainstem Colorado River fish community dynamics: Extension of Fish Sampling Units

Related to updating the GCMRC River Mile System, the GIS project also was responsible for 

updating the Fish Sampling Unit System for the same stretch of river below river mile 260. This 

update was necessary because of an increased focus on nonnative fish below Diamond Creek with 

more fish sampling efforts occurring in this reach.

Project 9. Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons: Database support for historical fisheries 

data

In addition to the fish sampling unit updates, the GIS project also worked with fish biologists and 

the fish database administrator to re-analyze past fishing efforts for the Lees Ferry Fisheries and 

Mechanical Removal efforts conducted in the early 2000s in order to assign spatial statistics to these 

data records. Once this was accomplished, these earlier fishing efforts could then be analyzed in a 

similar manner as the on-going mainstem fish sampling projects that take length of shoreline 

sampled into account when determining fish occupancy metrics. The GIS project’s involvement 

with this effort has helped to consolidate fish sampling efforts so that all samples can be spatially 

related using a consistent and standard fish sampling unit platform. 

Project 3. Geomorphology: Analysis of historical images at select monitoring sites (3.1.4)

As part of the GIS project, work continued on processing Digital Terrain Models of sandabars in 

1984 that are extracted photogrammetrically from historical aerial photography. In addition to 

having four sandbar sites processed, new DTM extraction software module was incorporated into 

the workflow that promises to yield better results than previously achieved on initial DTM 

generation efforts. This new module, Auto DTM, includes more robust algorithms for finding 

similarities between stereo pair photographic frames contained within a photogrammetric block. 

Early tests of this new software module are promising, resulting in denser point clouds than 

previously generated. (See Project 3, 3.1.4).

Project 3.5. Control Network and Survey Support: Database support and spatial analysis

GIS staff worked with Survey lead to fix existing errors in survey control network database. This 

involved extracting the most recent survey control network for Grand Canyon from the existing 

database and importing it into a GIS format, developing export files for sharing data, and creating 

maps for field and publication use. Additionally, GIS staff initiated the beginning stages of 

migrating survey control network database out of Microsoft Access and into ESRI Geodatabase 

format. This will serve as a temporary fix prior to designing a new database structure in Oracle for 

storing, analyzing, and serving Grand Canyon survey control network data.

Project 11. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring: Geospatial analysis and Site Selection Tool

The GIS project developed a randomized site selection tool to assist with vegetation transect field 
108

work beginning in FY15. Prior to the development of this GIS-based tool, riparian vegetation 

monitoring was either limited to areas studied by other projects (Long-term sandbar monitoring) or 

biased due to the lack of sound methods for randomizing this effort. The protocol developed by the 

GIS team utilizes a geospatial data-driven approach to defining the sampling frame and the specific 

sites to be eventually selected. GIS utilizes a number of geospatial data layers and a sampling 

protocol based on a combination of those data layers to randomly select sites along the Colorado 

River on either river left bank or river right bank between RM -15.6 and RM 240. 

Project 12 Socio-Economic Analysis: Lees Ferry Fisheries Angler Survey Analysis

The GIS project also worked with GMCRC’S Socio-Economic scientist to develop GIS data sets 

and perform analysis related to Lees Ferry angler surveys. This involved help helping the scientist 

better understanding how the data could be used for analysis, what would be the most appropriate 

ways to present the data, and how the data could best be shared with the public. 

14.2 Geospatial Data Management

During FY15 the GIS project continued to serve as the Center lead for geospatial data management. 

This work involved coordinating between GCMRC science staff and the SBSC IT group to provide 

better support to science projects in the form of more reliable disk storage for data, improved 

communication of science needs to IT support staff, and an increased focus on high-level data 

management needs such as web server configurations, database server maintenance, and software 

installations and upgrades.

It became apparent that weekly meetings were needed to improve IT support to GCMRC science 

projects and create a better working relationship between IT personnel and science staff. Through 

these meetings and directly assigned tasks, we were able to ensure that unresolved IT-related work 

was completed and new challenges that arose were met in an efficient and timely manner. One of the 

new challenges was to ensure all computer systems adhere to new IT security measures instated by 

the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey. Tasks related to this involved the 

removal all critical and high vulnerabilities associated with GMCRC’s Oracle databases, upgrading 

several software applications to newer versions, and the removal of expired servers from our system.

Another aspect of this project element is the maintenance and expansion of an Oracle Spatial 

Database for GCMRC. Due to the IT security issues experienced government wide in FY15, there 

was a great deal of unplanned work for this element in resolving the critical and high vulnerabilities 

found in several database servers with only very tight deadlines given. This was achieved only 

through the coordination provided by the GIS project and the diligent work of database 

administrators and IT staff involved with this issue.

Also during this past fiscal year, the GIS project was able to expand on the geospatial data hosted by 

the Oracle Spatial Database. Large, regional data sets available through the database now include the 

March 2000 CIR overflight data, a new Glen Canyon 2009 1-meter DEM with vegetation removed, 

and an updated Lake Powell 5-meter DEM and hillshade representing pre-dam topography. Projectbased geospatial data added to the database include the updated GCMRC River Mile System, the 

Fish Sampling Unit System, an updated Survey Control Network data set, and Aquatic Foodbase 
109

Light Trap data from 2012 through 2014.

During FY15, the GIS project was also involved with initiating the new USGS data review process 

for GCMRC. This work included assisting scientists with proper metadata development, review of 

spatial data characteristics (fields, values, etc.), and finalization of data review documents related to 

science publications. The new USGS data management protocols now require that the data used for 

peer-reviewed publications also go through a standardized review process, and be published 

alongside the publication.

14.3.1 Access to Geospatial Data Holdings – The Geospatial Portal

The GIS Project made significant strides in advancing the Center’s ability to host and share 

geospatial and other scientific data through web-based applications. A great deal of effort was made 

to build new systems for hosting map services that can be accessed by people outside the Center 

through different avenues. A large part of this work involved developing the systems (web server 

architecture, network communication, Oracle database access, and coordination with the USGS 

ESAS / Firewall team) used to serve geospatial and other data through GCMRC’s website. Once 

these systems were in place, it was then possible to install the necessary software components (ESRI 

ArcGIS Server, Portal for ArcGIS, etc.) and begin testing web map services and applications. We 

have now migrated these systems to the latest versions, which in turns provides more functionality 

to users of GCMRC web applications. The following is a descriptive list (with URLs provided) of 

new web-based mapping and data exploration applications now available through GCMRC’s 

website.

A redesigned GCMRC Map and Data Portal page (http://www.gcmrc.gov/dasa) 

The Map and Data Portal web page is the gateway to many of GCMRC’s data holdings. Available 

content is segmented according to Resource/Project type and by the nature of the content being 

served. This web page provides a more organized and modern look, and allows users to find content 

of interest more efficiently. This page also simplifies the process for adding new content to the site 

as it becomes available. 

New HFE Sandbar Photo application (http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/sandbartour2014/index.html)

Available through the GCMRC Map and Data Portal are many new applications, including a 

revamped way of serving remote camera photographs that bracket the most recent HFEs from Glen 

Canyon Dam (2012–2014). 

New Grand Canyon GIS Portal application (http://grandcanyon.usgs.gov/portal) 

Also in FY15, the GIS project established a new web server for GCMRC that is better designed to 

server geospatial and scientific data to the public through custom, in-house web applications. One of 

these new applications is the Grand Canyon GIS Portal. This is an ESRI product that enables the 

publishing, sharing, editing and downloading of many different kinds of geospatial data. 

New Geospatial Services page (http://www.gcmrc.gov/geospatial)
110

For GIS users, we now provide access to GCMRC’s geospatial data sets through a web services 

directory page that organizes REST service endpoints by data set and resource type. These services 

can be used in desktop applications by simply downloading a link (*.lyr) file of any service. They 

can also be consumed in web applications developed by users outside the GCMRC, or added into a 

Google Earth session as a layer (*.kmz).

14.3.2. Access to Geospatial Data Holdings – ESRI’s ArcGIS Online (http://www.arcgis.com)

In FY13–14, GCMRC’s GIS staff began using ESRI’s online portal service for disseminating data to 

a much wider audience than ever before. This service, ArcGIS Online, has quickly become one of 

the most used geospatial content delivery systems available on the web. In FY15–17, we expanded 

on the data made available to the public through this service. Data and services added to ArcGIS 

Online include the Citizen Science Aquatic Foodbase Light Trap Map Services and Web 

Application, Mainstem Fish Sampling Epoch Maps, Humpback Chub Hoop Net Data (1984-2013), 

Lake Powell Water Quality Station Map Service, and an updated Lake Powell Pre-Dam Topography 

Map Service. The benefit of using ArcGIS online in addition to hosting our own geospatial portal is 

that a particular service only needs to be created once by GIS staff, but can then be posted on both 

GCMRC’s website and through ESRI’s ArcGIS Online to reach a wider audience.

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $173,762 $4,000 $17,400 $0 $0 $26,606 $221,768 

Actual

Spent $160,375 $3,605 $21,421 $0 $0 $25,276 $210,678 

(Over)/Under

Budget $13,387 $395 ($4,021) $0 $0 $1,330 $11,090 

Project 14 Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate.

Carryover: $14,900, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers
111

Project 15: Administration

Program Manager 

(PM) Scott VanderKooi Investigator(s) (I) Scott VanderKooi, USGS 

GCMRC

Email svanderkooi@usgs.g

ov

Telephone 928-556-7376

SUMMARY 

During the Fiscal Year 2015, this budget covered the salaries for the communications coordinator, 

librarian, and budget analyst, as well as monetary awards for GCMRC personnel. The vehicle 

section covers the GSA vehicles that all of GCMRC use for travel and field work. The money was 

used for the monthly lease fee, mileage cost, and any costs for accidents and damages. This project 

also helps pay leadership personnel salaries, some travel and training for the Chief, Deputy Chief, 

and part of the salaries of two program managers. This section also covers the costs of IT equipment 

for GCMRC. Logistics base cost covers salaries and travel/training for logistics staff.

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $511,300 $30,000 $227,000 $79,000 $0 $107,112 $954,412 

Actual

Spent $273,700 $11,850 $207,312 $80,035 $0 $69,593 $642,490 

(Over)/Under

Budget $237,600 $18,150 $19,688 ($1,035) $0 $37,519 $311,922 

To other

USGS Centers Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Reduced salary costs due to lower actual burden rate and GCMRC Chief, Deputy Chief and Physical Scientist 

vacancies.

Carryover: $327,600, will be used to offset FY16 & FY17 shortages.

Project 15

(- Logistics) Salaries Travel & Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements
112

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $259,300 $5,000 $793,200 $0 $0 $144,169 $1,201,669 

Actual

Spent $252,393 $2,183 $835,432 $9,088 $0 $148,874 $1,247,971 

(Over)/Under

Budget $6,907 $2,817 ($42,232) ($9,088) $0 ($4,705) ($46,302)

Logistics Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Operating expenses higher than budgeted. 

Cooperative Agreement with Grand Canyon Youth.

Replaced forklift in FY15.
113

Project 1: Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water-Quality Monitoring

Program Manager 

(PM) Scott VanderKooi Investigator(s) (I) Bill Vernieu (retired as of May 2015)

Email svanderkooi@usgs.g

ov

Telephone 928-556-7376

SUMMARY 

Project Summary

GCMRC has conducted a long-term water-quality monitoring program of Lake Powell and Glen 

Canyon Dam (GCD) releases. This project has been funded entirely by Reclamation from water and 

power revenues and has received no monetary support from the GCDAMP. In addition to direct 

funding of the program, Reclamation has also provided support in terms of laboratory analyses and 

field assistance. 

The Lake Powell monitoring program was designed to determine status and trends in the quality of 

water in Lake Powell and GCD releases, determine the effect of meteorology, climate patterns, 

hydrology, and dam operations on reservoir hydrodynamics and the quality of water ultimately 

released from GCD, and provide predictions of future conditions.

Future activities under this project remain uncertain pending the outcome of a project review by 

Reclamation.

Science Questions

Examination of the body of existing data from the Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program 

has led to the identification of various processes that affect the quality of water in Lake Powell and 

GCD releases. These processes dictate the movement of water through the reservoir, changes to the 

quality of inflows moving through the reservoir, stratification patterns, and the conditions in the 

reservoir forebay that dictate withdrawal patterns and the quality of releases to the downstream 

environment. Based on identification of these processes, the following science questions have been 

developed:

What factors determine the fate of inflow currents moving through the reservoir? In most years 

winter inflows form density currents that move along the bottom of the reservoir. Depending on 

their density relative to the receiving waters of the reservoir, they will either continue to flow along 

the reservoir bottom and displacing older water upwards to entrainment in GCD releases, or flow 

into intermediate layers of the reservoir, leaving the deepest water stagnant. The displacement of 

deep water by density currents is an important mixing process for the reservoir. Without this 

displacement, deep water gradually becomes depleted in oxygen and could become anoxic over 

time, causing problems by generating of hydrogen sulfide and releasing contaminants from 

sediments. At this time, it is not completely understood what conditions result in a complete 

underflow or an interflow of these density currents.
114

How is reservoir and GCD release water affected by drought-induced drawdown of Lake Powell? 

Distinct changes in the quality of GCD releases have been observed during times of reservoir 

drawdown. This primarily results in the warm surface layers of the reservoir being brought closer to 

the penstock withdrawal elevation, resulting in the warming of releases downstream. However, 

reservoir drawdown also results in the resuspension of deltaic sediment in the inflow areas. This 

sediment has a significant oxygen demand from decaying organic material and can severely reduce 

oxygen concentrations in inflow currents passing over the delta. Depending on the degree of 

reservoir drawdown, the volume of inflows moving across the delta, the quality of deltaic sediments, 

and release patterns from GCD, the water released from GCD can become hypoxic and affect fish 

and other aquatic life immediately below the dam.

What effect do high-flow releases have on reservoir stratification patterns and GCD release water 

quality? During periods of releases above GCD powerplant capacity, water is withdrawn from GCD 

through the river outlet works, which bypass the GCD powerplant, drawing water from an elevation 

approximately 100ft deeper in the reservoir. Depending on the time of year and stratification 

patterns present in the reservoir at that time, the magnitude and duration of high-flow releases, and 

the elevation of the reservoir, high-flow releases may evacuate large volumes of water from selected 

elevations in the reservoir and may act to facilitate existing mixing processes in the reservoir. 

Additionally, high-flow releases may result in a rapid reservoir drawdown of several feet, causing 

exposure and resuspension of deltaic sediments. It has been proposed that this resuspension may act 

to increase nutrient concentrations and facilitate primary production in these inflow areas.

How do underwater landslide deposits affect sedimentation patterns, hydrodynamics, and the quality 

of reservoir water? Major landslide deposits have been observed in all of the main tributary arms of 

the reservoir. These most likely were formed by lubrication of clay-bearing geological formations 

during the early filling stages of the reservoir, causing structural failure and collapse of overlying 

formations, which can fill the mainchannel of the reservoir and block movement of sediment and 

water. This can block upstream sediment from moving downstream, effectively extended the life of 

the reservoir, but can also cause the stagnation of water upstream of the deposits. Two such deposits 

have recently been identified in the Escalante arm and can explain persistent anoxia observed in this 

area.

How can reservoir simulation modeling be incorporated to model processes in the reservoir to 

replicate past patterns, determine the relative effects of various processes on observed conditions, 

and predict future changes to reservoir and GCD release water quality? Currently, reservoir 

simulation modelling is performed by the UC Regional Office of Reclamation to predict future GCD 

release temperatures. Development of the model has not progressed substantially beyond its current 

use. Further enhancements to the model, use of the model by other entities to address other 

questions, and its increased application to simulating hydrodynamic and water-quality processes 

could be valuable to addressing factors affecting significant reservoir processes and prediction and 

evaluation of future conditions, in relation to dam operations and climate change.

How will the increase in quagga mussel populations affect the plankton community structure of the 

reservoir and the amount of biomaterial released downstream? Reproducing quagga mussel 

populations have recently been confirmed at Lake Powell and could increase dramatically in future 
115

years. These filter-feeding organisms can filter large quantities of water and could have a significant 

impact on primary and secondary production in the reservoir. The completion of analysis of a large 

backlog of plankton samples will establish a pre-invasion baseline on which future impacts of 

mussel invasion may be compared.

Monitoring Activities

Water-quality monitoring was conducted by Reclamation from 1965 to 1996, and has been 

conducted by GCMRC since that time. The current program consists of monthly sampling in the 

forebay area immediately upstream of GCD and in the GCD tailwater, quarterly surveys of the entire 

reservoir, and continuous monitoring of GCD releases. Quarterly reservoir surveys are conducted 

with a crew of four and are conducted within a six-day time period. Monitoring consists of vertical 

depth profiles of temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and 

chlorophyll concentrations at up to 35 locations on the reservoir, and sampling for major ion 

concentration and nutrients at a subset of these locations. In addition, biological samples for 

chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton are collected near the surface of selected stations and 

near the penstock withdrawal zone in the forebay. Since 1998, longitudinal profiles of bottom 

elevation have been collected in the inflow areas of the reservoir to determine the distribution and 

movement of sediments in the reservoir.

Since the beginning of FY15, seven forebay surveys and three reservoir-wide surveys have been 

conducted, in addition to pre-HFE and post-HFE monitoring in November 2014. The beginning 

dates of these surveys are shown below.

10/10/14 forebay 

11/07/14 forebay and pre HFE

11/19/14 forebay and post-HFE

12/10/14 full reservoir survey

01/22/15 forebay

02/20/15 forebay

03/12/15 full reservoir survey

04/09/15 forebay

05/12/15 full reservoir survey

06/26/15 forebay

08/04/15 forebay

10/12/15 forebay

The date of the next reservoir-wide survey is unknown due to funding uncertainties and equipment 

issues. 

Data from monitoring activities consists of the results of field observations of meteorological 

conditions, Secchi depth measurements, and vertical depth profiling. Results from the analysis of 

chemical and biological samples are usually received within two months of collection. These data 

are entered into the WQDB database (Vernieu, 2014) for subsequent statistical and graphical 

analysis.
116

A major effort to improve data accessibility was initiated in 2014. This project involves the 

migration of the existing MS Access database to an Oracle database platform and the development 

of a website to serve as a clearinghouse for Lake Powell water-quality data. This website will have 

the capability of providing data through ad hoc queries, generated through a map-based interface, 

and the graphical display of various types of data. This system will generate time-series graphs of 

GCD release water-quality parameters, reservoir elevations, GCD discharge for selected dates; 

graphs of vertical depth profiles from individual locations; and three-dimensional isopleth plots of 

depth profiles for the entire reservoir on a single date, or for a single location through time. It is 

anticipated that this system will also be capable of disseminating similar data for other Colorado 

River basin reservoirs when fully developed. This effort is on hiatus due to the retirement of Bill 

Vernieu and uncertainty about future funding for this project.

Progress and Accomplishments

The publication of a biological data report describing phytoplankton, zooplankton, and chlorophyll 

data collected from Lake Powell from 1990 through 2009 has been published. Analysis of a backlog 

of biological samples has been completed by a contractor. This resulted in a complete history of 

Lake Powell plankton data, including the initial stages of the recent quagga mussel invasion. 

Potential analyses of these data include identifying trends in biomass and community structure of 

zooplankton and phytoplankton populations and identifying potential factors that affect these 

populations.

Current Conditions

Hydrology - Lake Powell received 10.17 million acre feet (maf; 94% of average) of unregulated 

inflow in FY15, similar to the inflow observed in 2014 (96% of average), and significantly higher 

than inflows observed in 2012 and 2013 (45% and 47% of average, respectively). Reservoir levels 

reached a peak of 3614.32 ft on July 14, 2015, compared to a peak of 3609.68 ft in 2014. At the end 

of FY15, Lake Powell’s surface elevation was 3,606.01 ft with storage of 12.3 maf, or 51% of 

capacity. This is similar to the end of FY14 when surface elevation was 3,605.5 ft, and storage was 

12.29 maf.

Releases for FY15 totaled 9.0 maf (compared to 7.48 maf total releases for WY2014) with 

operations under the Upper-Elevation Balancing Tier. A High-Flow Experiment (HFE) was 

conducted in November 2014, in which approximately 37,500 ft3/s was released for a 96-hour period 

and Lake Powell’s surface elevation decreased by approximately 2.9 ft.

Operations for FY16 will fall under the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier with a total projected 

annual release volume of 9.0 maf after an April 2016 adjustment. Based on the 24-month study of 

October 2015, Lake Powell surface elevation at the end of FY16 is projected to be approximately 

3,600 feet with approximately 11.8 maf in storage (48% capacity).

Glen Canyon Dam Release Temperature - Glen Canyon Dam release temperatures from 2003-2010 

were above average because of low reservoir elevations resulting from extended drought conditions 

in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Lower reservoir elevations in 2014 and 2015, combined with a 

higher inflow volumes, also resulted in above-average release temperatures during the summer and 
117

fall of 2014 and 2015, with release temperatures exceeding 14°C in the fall of both years.

Lake Powell Limnology – Unlike in 2014, a winter underflow density current was not observed in 

spring 2015. These density currents, which are typical cause a significant freshening (i.e. increase) 

of hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen concentrations near Glen Canyon Dam. Other years when these 

density currents did not occur were 2006, 2009, and 2012. The National Park Service detected larval 

quagga mussels in Lake Powell in the fall of 2012. Adult quagga mussels were discovered in Lake 

Powell marina areas in early 2013 and continue to increase in numbers. 

Program Support

A five-year agreement for continued support of the Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program 

was developed with Reclamation in 2013 to provide funding for staff, supplies and maintenance of 

the Uniflite vessel and other equipment, and sample analysis. Funding was received under this 

agreement in 2013 and 2014. In addition to direct funding of the Lake Powell program in the 

approximate amount of $250,000 annually, Reclamation had also provided approximately $180,000 

in in-kind support for sample analysis and field assistance. All 2015 activities were conducted using 

funds carried forward from 2014. With the retirement of Bill Vernieu in May 2015, Reclamation put 

a hold on the funding proposal GCMRC had submitted for funding in 2015. Reclamation indicated 

they planned to review the Lake Powell program and decide on its future based on the review’s 

results, In the interim, GCMRC has committed to conducting monthly forebay sampling until 

remaining funds have been expended. The planned external review of this program funded in the 

FY2015–17 workplan has been postponed pending the outcome of this review.

PRODUCTS/REPORTS

Type Title

Due 

Date

Date 

Deliver

ed

Date 

Expecte

d

Citations/Comments

Data 

series

Biological data for water in 

Lake Powell and from Glen 

Canyon Dam releases, Utah and 

Arizona, 2009-2012

10/6/15

Vernieu, W.S., 2015, 

Biological data for 

water in Lake Powell 

and from Glen Canyon 

Dam releases, Utah and 

Arizona, 1990–2009: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Data Series 959, 12 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.313

3/ds959.
118

Burden

13.633%

Budgeted

Amount $183,500 $8,700 $40,300 $20,000 $20,300 $32,297 $305,097 

Actual

Spent $79,992 $2,861 $37,382 $0 $0 $16,392 $136,627 

(Over)/Under

Budget $103,508 $5,839 $2,918 $20,000 $20,300 $15,905 $168,470 

COMMENTS (Discuss anomalies in the budget; expected changes; anticipated carryover; etc.)

Carried $166,000 over from FY14 to FY15 and we did not receive any FY16 Funds non-AMP Lake Powell Funds. 

Carried over $30,000 of non-AMP Lake Powell Funds.

Carried over $20,000 of AMP Lake Powell Funds.

Project 1 Salaries Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses

Cooperative 

Agreements

To other

USGS Centers Total