Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

June 24-25, 2014 

Conducting: John Jordan, TWG Chair Convened: 9:30 a.m.

 Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Shane Capron, WAPA/TWG Vice-Chair 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Hualapai Tribe 

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Robert King, State of Utah (phone) 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board 

Jerry Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Mark Van Vlack, State of California 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, FWS 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 

VACANT, State of Wyoming

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Lucas Bair, Economist 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist 

Kyrie Fry, Communications Coordinator 

Ted Kennedy, Aquatic Biologist (phone) 

Ted Melis, Sediment Resources Mgr. (phone) 

Jack Schmidt, Center Director

Scott VanderKooi, Biology Program Manager 

Interested Persons:  

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Hualapai Tribe 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, Tribal Liaison DOI (phone a.m.) 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative: Mr. Jordan welcomed the members and the public. Introductions were 

made and a quorum determined. 

 Approval of April 8-9, 2014, Meeting Minutes. With two edits, they were approved by consensus. 

 Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). Mr. Dongoske - It’s been 14 years since the Tribal 

Consultation Plan was drafted and it’s still in draft. This is symptomatic of the program not 

integrating tribal perspectives. 

 Ad Hoc Group Updates. The CRAHG was asked to provide an update on the TWP later in the 

meeting or on a future webinar. The AHAHG needs to discuss what work can be done as part of 

the Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group. 

 Old Business: None. 

 New Business: 

o Reminder the TWG Chair and TWG Vice-Chair elections will be held tomorrow. 

o The next TWG Meeting will be October 28-29, 2014 in Phoenix. Doodle polls will be set up 

requesting meeting dates in 2015. The need to hold the Annual Reporting meeting 

annually will be discussed at the October meeting. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25,  2014, Meeting Page 2

LTEMP EIS Update (Attachment 2) – Mr. Glen Knowles. The majority of the modeling for the LTEMP 

Draft has been completed. A decision regarding a preferred alternative has not and will not be made 

based solely on the structured decision analysis or the modeling results. He presented characteristics of 

an emerging hybrid alternative, sediment results, and the screening tool estimates of sediment transport 

that separate fluctuation and monthly volume effects. A comparison of RTCD with MLFF didn’t indicate a 

lot of difference. The benefits of the hybrid alternative are: 

 Blends multiple alternatives that were weighted highly by a wide variety of stakeholders in the structured 

decision analysis process. 

 Uses the monthly volume pattern of RTCD that more closely matches power demand to improve 

hydropower performance and sediment conservation. 

 Represents an improvement over CDAS and RTCD in terms of sediment transport and conservation 

 Preserves beneficial effects of TMFs on humpback chub numbers 

 Tests a variety of condition-dependent elements to improve sediment and HBC conservation 

 Maintaining a 8,000 cfs fluctuation cap has benefits for sediment and recreation 

A public draft will be available at the end of October. 

Budget AHG Report – Mr. Shane Capron. 

 Revision of GCDAMP 2010 Budget Process Paper. 

 Update from BAHG Conference Calls. Two conference calls (Attachment 3) were held to discuss 

the FY15-17 TWP. The BAHG prioritized the Unfunded Projects List and got to FY15 as a 

balanced budget but it’s unclear how to balance FY16-17. 

 Discussion of FY15-17 Budget Issues. Presentations will be made by the individual principle 

investigators on the projects. The CRAHG hasn’t had time to discuss the budget but will try to 

meet during the course of the 2-day meeting and report back to the TWG. 

Using colored card (red=not ready to vote, yellow=have some concerns, green=ready to vote), the 

members indicated where they stood on making a budget recommendation: 

 There’s been no discussion about the projects. 

 Some projects entail the killing of fish. Disappointed these issues weren’t presented to the Zuni. 

 Need to understand hydrology and haven’t seen the 2015 hydrograph. 

 We can’t make a recommendation to AMWG with the FY16-17 budgets out of balance. 

 If unfunded projects exceed the budget, what are GCMRC priorities/recommendations? 

 Beneficial to have a project timeline indicating length of projects and/or putting on shelf until funding 

becomes available. Also identify projects that are 2-3 years. 

Science Advisors Report (Attachment 4) – Dr. Dave Garrett (Dr. James Kitchell and Dr. Barbara Mills 

joined by phone.) The SA reviewed this plan over a 2-week period and found it to be the best plan 

they’ve ever reviewed. The report is broken into three parts (with some recommendations below): 

1. General comments on overall plan, content and structure 

o Need for executive summary addressing all major plan elements 

o Introduction that provides basis for content, adaptive management purpose 

o Need for guide or pointers introducing sections, budget linkage, linkages to other sections 

o Need one page budget summary in introduction and detailed summary in appendix 

2. Specific comments on project methods, design and outcomes 

o Physical Resources - Encourage greater integration regarding cultural resource science and 

management 

o Cultural Resources – Express more explicit linkages developed among projects critical to cultural 

resource assessments, i.e., 2, 3, 11, 13, etc. 

o Biological Resources – This program might best be evaluated as part of long-term monitoring given 

its important connectivity to cultural, aquatic, biological, and physical resources. 

o Fish Ecology – Understanding the issues of food base, habitat need and predation and their 

integration regarding HBC have greatest focus and hope for success in projects 7.1-7.5. 

o Rainbow Trout Ecology – A major shortfall is the lack of concrete evidence from the abundance of 

past work to justify approaches in 2015-17. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25,  2014, Meeting Page 3

o Food Base – An argument might be that only small insects with rapid life cycles that are either filter 

feeders or collecters can use these habitats. A more thorough literature search and assessments 

could produce a more focused hypothesis. 

o Socioeconomic Research – It is critical to assess values of tribal resources and tribal 

representatives need to be involved in all phases of the effort. 

3. Recommendations related to general and specific comments 

o A long-term management plan with a science strategy is missing. There also needs to be 

agreements on critical management actions and stakeholder AM actions on critical monitoring 

activities. 

o It is not clear that optional management treatments were considered in each of the projects. It 

would benefit the proposed authors to create a project proposal template that includes separate 

sections for scientific rationale and management linkages under each element. 

FY15-17 TWP Budget (Attachment 5a = AIF and TWP). 

Bureau of Reclamation Budget and Work Plan (Attachment 5b) – Mr. Glen Knowles. Reclamation’s 

budget for the next three years will be with and without carryover: 

FY15 = $3,492,477 FY16 = $4,092,201 FY17 = $4,664,828

w/o CO = $2,618,398 w/o CO = $2,681,307 w/o CO = $2,747,414

 A Facilitation Contract is being prepared for AMWG in FY15 for $79,556.

 Since 2010, there has been $100K in carryover funding for the POAHG. In FY15, $50K will be used to 

develop a Glen Canyon Dam Administrative History pilot project. This will include oral histories, a website 

and library database for information archival and retrieval, and a new participant’s handbook for the AMP. 

 TWG Chair/Facilitation will be $32,050 starting in FY15. 

 Reclamation will begin administering the Science Advisors contract in FY15 at $75,000. 

 The Non-native Fish Control Contingency Fund is $824,079 starting in FY15. Of that, $364,052 will go to 

GCMRC native fish projects in FY15. 

 The Cultural Program is $1,272,477 in FY15 and will be used for Zuni associative values, support for 

GCMRC’s project 4, Glen Canyon monitoring, a TEK ecological restoration project, and non-native fish 

removal consultation. 

Comments: 

 That’s a lot of money for facilitating two AMWG meetings. 

 The Experimental Flow Fund seems vulnerable to raiding, i.e., FY13 sequestration. 

 Use of lidar on archaeology sites to determine if site is maintaining its integrity. In their PA responsibility, 

BOR should be concerned with integrity of the site and not the surface of sites. Integrity has four 

categories: (1) Is associated with a nationally, regionally, or locally important event (2) Is associated with a 

nationally, regionally, or locally important person, (3) Is a good example of a master craftsman or a good 

example of a period or style, and (4) Has potential to yield important information in history or pre-history. 

Most archaeological sites are classified under #4 but integrity is “does the historic properties still convey 

those characteristics that make it eligible for the National Register?” if you have a site that is eroding and 

you’re losing scientific information, then that’s a threat to its integrity. Kurt said he thought BOR and NPS 

would be interested in that information because NPS has a Section 110 responsibility for managing over 

time these historic properties. You’re not getting that kind of information from the lidar work. Need 

confirmation from Reclamation that what’s proposed in terms of monitoring is going to meet its legal 

responsibilities. 

Glen: There will be more discussions on this.

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted. 

GCMRC Budget amd Work Plan Overview (Attachment 5c) – Dr. Jack Schmidt. In the three years he’s 

been at GCMRC, the staff has worked very hard to manage science. The research groups are the guts of 

the program and research must be responsive to intellectual needs. There is a lot of interagency 

cooperation and collaboration. In response to a request on the last BAHG call on how much staff time 

was being used to support the LTEMP EIS, the following was provided: 

Employee Hours Employee Hours 

L. Bair 100 D. Topping 40 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25,  2014, Meeting Page 4

H. Fairley 80 S. VanderKooi 80 

P. Grams 168 C. Yackulic 480 

T. Gushue 160 

 The proposal for FY15 is balanced at $8.7 million. (Appendix 2b) with $0.8 million from BOR 

funding (Lake Powell water quality), and $0.7 million is unfunded. 

 FY16 - $10.86 million (total GCDAMP request; $9.4 million recommended ($9.0 million GCDAMP 

funds available). 

 FY17 - $10.71 million (total GCDAMP request) ($9.3 million GCDAMP funds available). FY16 and 

FY17 aren’t balanced yet. A lot of research projects will be done by post-doctoral students and 

money will be brought in from other competitive resources because less will be available due to 

overhead costs. 

Project 2. Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport ($1.34 million) – Dr. David Topping. This 

is a pretty straightforward project with no major changes. Arizona Water Science Center reduced $60K in 

overhead costs. This project will meet efforts to hold spring and fall HFEs. 

Status: Approved by consensus. 

Project 3. Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics ($1.33 million) – Dr. Paul Grams (by phone). 

Project 3.1.3, is a new project at $42K to do surveying with a camera: rapid topographic surveys with 

digital images using structure-from-motion photogrammetry. The Hualapai Tribe has requested work in 

Western Grand Canyon and GCMRC is moving ahead on this. Without Project 3, Project 10 isn’t 

possible. Concern was expressed about monitoring in Western Grand Canyon and is there room for 

monitoring archaeology sites as well. 

Status: Dr. Schmidt will review the costs of this program tonight and report to TWG tomorrow. 

Project 13. Socio-economic Monitoring and Research ($0.18 million) – Mr. Lucas Bair. Since a number of 

projects are unfunded, Mr. Ostler questioned the necessity for a new start and questioned how the 

information will be integrated under the LTEMP for next 20 years. Reclamation supports this proposal 

and feels it’s an element that’s been missing from the AMP for a long time. Lucas views 13.3 as broader 

than what LTEMP has addressed and from an economic viewpoint is more encompassing. 

Comments: 

 Some elements can’t have a dollar value. Further explanation would help us make comprehensive 

decisions and move us forward. 

 Not convinced economics is the way to do it. The dollar benefit doesn’t wash. 

 Project 13.2 –the approach uses a capitalist perspective, how are tribes and the history of tribes considered 

in the tradeoffs that are of traditional importance? Did GCMRC use an internal review board for interviewing 

tribes? What recourse do tribes have if they do not approve of GCMRC use of the information? The 

research may not understand them or may be inappropriately used. Not sure if USGS has an IRP that is 

mainly used to protect the institution. (Helen: This is an OMB policy requirement and can do further 

checking.) 

 Navajo Nation expressed concerns to Mr. Bair on 5/22 and we want a response from him. 

 Not sure that, in many cases, our scientific knowledge of small, incremental changes and improvements on 

the resource is precise enough to be used effectively in an economic analysis. A good example is a .5° 

temperature increase at the LCR in June or HBC. What will the cost benefit be, what are the socioeconomic parts, how will they be used? In theory, it would be nice information to have but is it going to get 

us there? There are unfunded projects to consider as well as a lack of research funding in the future. 

Where does this fit in?

Don spoke offline to Dave and Lucas and reported back that he could approve this project. 

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted. 

Project 10. Mapping and Assessment of Aquatic Habitats Below Glen Canyon Dam ($0.15 million) – Dr. 

Ted Melis. This is a new project and will bring in several sets of information from several already preexisting projects to address the question “Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25,  2014, Meeting Page 5

fishery end?” Most people assume it ends at the confluence with the Colorado and the Paria Rivers at 

Lees Ferry. Scott gave a PPT on “Not All Trout in Marble Canyon Originate from Lees Ferry: Evidence of 

Local Recruitment.” There could be trout reproducing in the lower reach of the river and we don’t want 

trout there. Ted said he was originally asked to think about a tailwater study for FY15 and beyond, mostly 

in Glen Canyon from questions on low flow operations and whether or not those affect the fishery 

through the food web. There are three elements to the project, the first takes place in 2015 and that is to 

complete work that’s already been partially undertaken by Dan Buscombe. He used a fisherman’s 

commercial side-scan sonar unit (Humminbird) to develop quantitative methods for creating scientific 

datasets. These can be compared and quantified for change detection of bed area coverage; sand vs. 

gravel. It is critical to complete this work in 2015 because the proposal for element 2 continues collecting 

bed data imagery to determine changes in the grain size and the NO project collects fish data in these 

four reaches. The data collection is scheduled to take place, if it’s approved, in 2015 and 2016 utilizing 

the methods that hopefully will be completed. This is an inexpensive use of equipment that produces 

great bed imagery that can be used for scientific analysis. In 2017 a synthetic analysis in the context of a 

workshop will look at changes quantified in those reaches relative to the fish, RBT abundance and diet 

information and water quality. 

This project is $54,000 unfunded. This could support a student for the first two years and get through the 

refinement of the methodology, continue collection, and process the data. Dr. Schmidt said he would like 

a clear statement from the TWG that is “super, high priority work and do the whole thing” or offer some 

other recommendation. 

Comments: 

 Don’t know whether I would prioritize these projects over something else. This may be another project that 

provides good information but not sure of tradeoff. 

 Concern with funding this but might want to support other projects that haven’t been discussed. 

 Feel like some of these things (channel mapping) will be done anyway sooner or later so not sure all of it 

has to be done right now. Happy with the first year, 2015. 

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted. 

Public Comments: None 

Adjourned: 5 p.m. 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25,  2014, Meeting Page 6

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

June 24-25, 2014 

Conducting: John Jordan, TWG Chair Convened: 8:15 a.m.

 Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Shane Capron, WAPA/TWG Vice-Chair 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Hualapai Tribe 

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Robert King, State of Utah (phone) 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board 

Jerry Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Mark Van Vlack, State of California 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, FWS 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

VACANT, State of Wyoming

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Lucas Bair, Economist 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist 

Kyrie Fry, Communications Coordinator 

Ted Kennedy, Aquatic Biologist (phone) 

Ted Melis, Sediment Resources Mgr. (phone) 

Bill Persons, Biologist 

Jack Schmidt, Center Director

Scott VanderKooi, Biology Program Manager 

Charles Yackulic, Biologist 

David Ward, Biologist 

Interested Persons:  

Mark Anderson, NPS/GCNRA 

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors 

Katrina Grantz, Bureau of Reclamation (phone) 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

Sarah Rinkevich, Tribal Liaison DOI 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative: Mr. Jordan welcomed the members and the public. Introductions were 

made and a quorum determined. 

TWG Chair and Vice Chair Elections – Mr. Knowles thanked Mr. Jordan for doing a fantastic job as 

TWG Chair for the past two years. The floor was opened for nominations for the next fiscal year (Oct 1, 

2014 – Sept. 30, 2015). Mr. Stevens nominated Ms. Kartha as TWG Chair, seconded by Mr. Thiriot. Ms. 

Kartha was unanimously approved. Mr. Thiriot nominated Mr. Capron to continue serving as TWG ViceChair and he was also unanimously approved. Mr. Jordan said that one thing that’s been very apparent 

in the time he’s been associated with the AMP is the genuine, collegial goodwill that exists amongst all of 

the stakeholders. This also goes to the folks at GCMRC who he has found to be available, open, 

accessible, and eager to interact and be supportive of the program. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25, 2014, Meeting Page 7

   

Basin Hydrology, Operations, and 2015 Hydrograph. (Attachment 6a) – Ms. Katrina Grantz (by 

phone). There was above average snowpack in most basins; the San Juan was the only sub-basin that 

was below average. Snowpack peak was 111% of median but nearly all measurable snow has melted. 

Inflow at Lake Powell came up around late May/early June at 64,000 cfs coming into the reservoir and is 

now down to 30,000 cfs. During peak times the reservoir was rising about a foot each day but now is 

coming up about half a foot a day. Lake Powell is operating under the Interim Guidelines based on the 

August 2013 projection of the January 1 elevation. We are in the mid-elevation release tier this water 

year and regardless of what the actual inflow is, the release will be 7.48 maf. In WY2015 the operating 

tier will be determined in August. The minimum probable and most probable projections are the upper 

elevation balancing tier release of 9.0 maf. Under the maximum probable inflow scenario the release is 

11.4 maf with an April adjustment to the equalization tier. 

GCD Maintenance: Maintenance will be arranged to have seven of eight units available for an HFE. The 

available capacity would be approximately 20,600 cfs through the powerplant plus an additional 15,000 

cfs through the bypass tubes totaling 35,600 cfs. Under the maximum probable inflow scenario, annual 

release will be close to 11 maf. A typical 11.4 maf pattern would release 700,000 af but the capacity is 

630,000. In Jun-Jul-Aug, the amount typically scheduled won’t be available so water will be shifted to 

achieve the annual release. 

DOI-DOE Hydrograph – Mr. Katrina Grantz. The 2015 hydrograph is based on a targeted approach with 

more volume released later in the year. The objective of the hydrograph is to retain sand inputs high in 

the system in anticipation of a potential fall HFE (Nov) 2015. Lower Aug-Oct releases will be targeted to 

avoid shifting “extra” water to June (which cools the temperature at the mouth of the LCR), and water 

from August will be moved to other equal value months for hydropower (Dec/Jan, Jul). Decreasing 

releases from 1,000kaf to 800kaf range can significantly decrease sand transport. The lower the release 

volume, the less impact there is on sand retention. The members reviewed the draft hydrograph motion 

(Attachment 6b) and offered minor changes and the following comments: 

Comments: 

 Is the difference of 0.5°C temperature significant to HBC? Mr. VanderKooi: The effect would be minimal. 

The information we’re getting suggests a lot of fish stay in the LCR until the monsoon season kicks in. Our 

sense is that it’s important to be warmer earlier in summer than later. 

 Is the 200 kaf in those two months sufficient justification? Glen: This ultimately began as a request from 

FWS, not moving water into June would help fish and is not that bad for hydropower as indicated by 

WAPA. 

 We’re constrained by water demands. The SDM process revealed that hydrology drives everything. 

 The tribes have a stake in the river system and are sensitive to what happens with the flow regimes. The 

Bureau of Reclamation needs to consult with the tribes before the next AMWG meeting. 

Motion (Proposed by Ted Kowalski, seconded by Vineetha Kartha): TWG recommends the AMWG 

recommend to the Secretary of the Interior her approval of the DOI-DOE Proposed Hydrograph for Water 

Year 2015 as follows: 

Annual Release Volumes will be determined by the 2007 Interim Guidelines and shall be 

reviewed and adopted through the normal annual operating plan process (in consultation 

with the Basin States as appropriate). 

Monthly Release Volumes are anticipated to shift depending upon: (1) the projected 

Annual Release Volume, (2) power plant capacity, and (3) the magnitude of a potential 

High Flow Experiment.

Monthly Release Volumes may vary within the targets identified below. Any remaining 

monthly operational flexibility will be used for existing power production operations under 

the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) alternative selected by the 1996 ROD and 

contained in the 1995 FEIS and in compliance with all applicable NEPA compliance 

documents (HFE EA, NNFC EA, 2007 IG).Release objective for June is: 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25, 2014, Meeting Page 8

   

600 to 650 kaf for annual releases below 9.0 maf 

800 kaf for annual releases of 9.0 maf to less than 9.5 maf 

900 kaf for annual releases of 9.5 maf to less than 10 maf 

Greater than 900 kaf for annual releases 10 maf and greater 

Release objective for August is 800 kaf 

Release objective for September is: 

600 kaf for annual releases below 9.0 maf 

700 kaf for annual releases of 9.0 maf to less than 10.0 maf 

800 kaf or greater for annual releases of 10.0 maf or greater; up to powerplant capacity for 

high equalization releases 

Monthly Release Volumes will generally strive to maintain 600 kaf levels in the shoulder 

months (spring and fall) and 800 kaf in the December/January and July/August timeframe. 

Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to apply best professional judgment 

in conducting actual operations and in response to changing conditions throughout the 

water year. Such efforts will continue to be undertaken in coordination with the DOI/DOE 

agencies and in consultation with the Basin States as appropriate, to consider changing 

conditions and adjust projected operations in a manner consistent with the objectives of 

these parameters as stated above and pursuant to the Law of the River. 

Status: Approved by consensus with follow-up consultation with the tribes. 

FY 2015-17 Triennial Budget Discussion (Project PPT presentations = Attachment 7) GCMRC’s 

response to Arizona Game and Fish Department’s concerns were provided by e-mail (Attachment 8). 

Project 6. Main-stem Colorado River HBC Aggregations and Fish Community Dynamics ($.71 million) – 

Mr. Bill Persons (by phone). Dr. Rinkevich questioned why project 6.6 was being deferred. It’s a good 

project. Bill said the funding isn’t sufficient to pull experts together and detail the study plan. It’s a 

placeholder in the FY17 budget. Project 6.5 is also being deferred. There is overlap in objectives 

between the otolith work GCMRC has been doing on BT and what is being collected as part of the Bright 

Angel non-native fish control efforts. It seemed best to let that one pan out first and see what the results 

are before moving forward on a second study on the same topic. 

Comments: 

 The tribes don’t support trout removal. The focus should be on HBC population growth. 

 Tribes would support a project like this that shows a greater HBC population distribution.This would result 

in less ESA compliance pressure and allow future funding to be allocated to other ecological research 

projects. Tribal consultation shouldn’t be considered a major stumbling block. 

 Recreational fishing interests are very supportive of mainstem augmentation. 

 System wide electrofishing will have reviews, some tied to evaluation. We need to take a hard look at the 

level of detail needed to make management decisions. 

 Even though the electrofishing isn’t geared towards killing fish, there is the potential for collateral loss of life 

to insects and other aquatic animals. That’s a concern to Zuni. The tribal council has been alerted to these 

issues and they want consultation and negotiation with the decision-makers from Reclamation, GCMRC 

and NPS about loss of life. 

 There’s a lot of interest in this project and GCMRC is proposing to do a PEP panel to review what needs to 

be done because so many agencies have a stake in this work. 

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted. 

Project 7. Population Ecology of HBC In and Around the Little Colorado River ($1.59 million) – Dr. 

Charles Yackulic (by phone). He reviewed the elements within the project. 

Comments: 

 Have reservation funding for 7.5 and 7.9 with AMP funds. Projects 7.6 and 7.7 will provide good 

information, not sure what can be done from a management standpoint. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25, 2014, Meeting Page 9

   

 It would be nice to have a way to prioritize some of these project elements. 

 The NNFC fund (from the Experimental Flow Fund on yearly basis) is supporting non-native fish work. 

 There has to be a lot of overlap within elements and potential funds could be saved each year. 

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted. 

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

Canyon ($.19 million) – David Ward (phone). This project encompasses two ongoing experimental 

actions and two new projects that are all designed to increase survival of juvenile native fish. They are 

also proposing to convene a protocol evaluation panel (PEP) comprised of external experts to conduct a 

review of the fish research and monitoring that’s occurring in Grand Canyon. 

Comments: 

 Consultation needs to occur on removal of BT before the AMWG meeting. 

 The AMP isn’t a recovery program for the HBC so we need to understand the funding and be able to do 

things that fall outside of dam operations. The Hopi Tribe does support BT removal but concerned it doesn’t 

become a de facto trout removal program. 

 The need to explore the possibility of BAC as a suitable location for HBC by reducing or removing the trout 

population has moved into the mainstem and is looking like BT removal to reduce potential impacts of BT 

predation on HBC in the LCR. 

Status: Approved by consensus. 

Project 9. Understanding Factors Determining Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and Movement of 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons ($0.87 million) – Mike Yard (phone). The reason for placing 

so much emphasis on RBT has a lot to do with the importance of the Lees Ferry Glen Canyon fishery but 

as well as the recent evidence that links RBT abundance to the decline of juvenile chub abundance 

around the LCR. One of the objectives of the NO project (9.2) identifies some of the uncertainty about 

the source and origin of the LCR population. This is a research project and it’s going to sunset in 2016 so 

one of the reasons for these elements is to take advantage of this particular program and address some 

of the uncertainties under the present time schedule. The current elements remain unfunded: 9.4, 9.5, 

and 9.7. 

Comments: 

 In the CFMP there are triggers related to 25-year dataset. Will the PEP change the course? Let’s make 

sure we’re fully aware of tradeoffs. 

 We need an analytical conversion for the trigger points. 

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted. 

Project 12. Dam-related Effects on the Distribution and Abundance of Selected Culturally-important 

Plants in the Colorado River Ecosystem – Dr. Helen Fairley. This is a 2-year project. It’s a small project 

starting with a small subset of plants and exploring the possibility for a larger one in the future. The 

location hasn’t been determined but will be in the river corridor. A workshop needs to be held with the 

tribes to determine what they want to work on. Dr. Garrett said the SA had concerns on: (1) Some 

implication that you do a fairly aggressive analysis that you relate to dam construction and presence, (2) 

Difficulty with photographing small plants, and (3) Limited budget may not result in producing good, 

effective products. Cliff asked if the entire $52K was needed because $7K is unfunded. Helen said that 

much of that covers her salary with a small amount being tacked onto a river trip to match for travel. 

Comments: 

 Will funding continue in FY16-17? Can foresee integration into tribal monitoring in out years. 

 Be aggressive to fully fund the project to enable a good start and do the literature research in order to have 

a successful workshop. 

 Can approve project if Helen would ensure that the project documents plants that have improved in number 

and type and plants that have degraded in number and type, and eliminate the title of “dam-related effects” 

and just talk about effects “pre- or post-1964.” Helen: Can’t commit to any changes without talking with 

tribes. Am fine with changing the title. 

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted. 

Project 5. Food Base Monitoring and Research ($0.56 million) – Dr. Ted Kennedy (phone). This project 

focuses on targeted monitoring of key food web linkages and some new research intended to better 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25, 2014, Meeting Page 10

   

understand the foodbase in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. The AMP will not be asked to fund field 

work any place other than the Colorado River reach. 

Comments: 

 WAPA is trying to figure out how to coordinate these studies with Ted. They want to work with some of the 

issues of EPT by looking at other locations where there are the right bugs. WAPA has a process to 

evaluate projects and will make a decision early this fall whether they will fund the work. 

 The NPS work being done in BAC can inform work in these elements. 

 The project should include looking at biological things that may be affecting distribution – chemical or water 

quality type issues. 

 We’ve gotten too narrowly focused by looking at just one hypothesis. We need a broader scope. 

Status: The TWG couldn’t reach consensus and felt more discussion was needed. The TWG will send 

questions/concerns to GCRMC and further discussion will be held on the next TWG webinar. 

Public Comments: None. 

Adjourned: 3 p.m. 

Next Steps: 

1. Will be sending out a “doodle” poll seeking availability for a webinar in mid-July. The purpose will be 

to discuss FY16 and FY17 budgets and develop a budget recommendation for the AMWG. 

2. Reclamation needs to consult with the tribes on the proposed 2015 hydrograph before the August 

meeting. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Linda Whetton 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Region 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of June 24‐25, 2014, Meeting Page 11

   

Key to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AIF – Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

ASMR – Age-Structure Mark Recapture 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group 

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure 

BE – Biological Evaluation 

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow 

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow 

BHTF – Beach/Habitat Test Flow 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO – Biological Opinion 

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation 

BWP – Budget and Work Plan 

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group 

CAP – Central Arizona Project 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan 

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan 

CPI – Consumer Price Index 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California 

CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CRE – Colorado River Ecosystem 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DOE – Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN – Federal Register Notice 

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HFE – High Flow Experiment 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

IG – Interim Guidelines 

INs – Information Needs 

KA – Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab Ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation 

 Program 

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis 

MLFF – Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

MO – Management Objective 

MRP – Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NNFC – Non-native Fish Control 

NOI – Notice of Intent 

NPCA – National Parks Conservation Association 

NPS – National Park Service 

NRC – National Research Council 

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR Funding) 

PA – Programmatic Agreement 

PBR – Paria to Badger Creek Reach 

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

R&D – Research and Development 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP – Request for Proposal 

RINs – Research Information Needs 

ROD Flows – Record of Decision Flows 

RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SA – Science Advisors 

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior 

SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office 

SOW – Statement of Work 

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group 

SPG – Science Planning Group 

SSQs – Strategic Science Questions 

SWCA – Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD – Temperature Control Device 

TCP – Traditional Cultural Property 

TEK – Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species 

TMC – Taxa of Management Concern 

TWG – Technical Work Group 

UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR – United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WAPA – Western Area Power Administration 

WY – Water Year 

(Updated: 2/20/2014) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group WebEx/CC Meeting 

July 15, 2014 

Conducting: Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair Convened: 9:00 a.m.

 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Hualapai Tribe 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Jerry Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Dave Rogowski, Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, FWS 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 

VACANT, State of Wyoming

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist 

Kyrie Fry, Communications Coordinator 

Ted Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist 

Ted Melis, Sediment Resources Mgr. 

Barbara Ralston, Supervisory Biologist 

Daniel Sarr, Research Ecologist 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist 

Jack Schmidt, Center Director

Scott VanderKooi, Biology Program Manager 

Interested Persons:  

Mary Barger, Bureau of Reclamation 

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Mark Van Vlack, State of California 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative: Mr. Capron welcomed the members and the public. Roll call was taken 

and a quorum determined. 

Science Advisor Report Update (attached) - Dr. Garrett provided a memo to Dr. Schmidt identifying the 

five critical areas that GCMRC needs to address in the budget: 

1. Projects 4 and 12 do not demonstrate appropriate science standards in defining and justifying the 

science approach, presenting appropriate science design, and clarifying data development and 

assessments. These need to be rewritten. 

2. After completion of the LTEMP EIS, the SAs recommend GCRMC merge the major planning 

documents (the Science and Monitoring Operations Plan, the Strategic Management and Science 

Plans, and a Core Monitoring Plan) into the 2015-17 Triennial plan. 

3. GCRMC and AMWG should review general program and budget needs for 2015-20, and 

recommend new budget baselines. 

4. A new management/science initiative should be developed by GCMRC in collaboration with BOR 

centered in collaborative work at Lake Powell. The design should be a basin wide monitoring and 

science effort including development of a system model for the basin that can relate management 

actions to resource effects. [Dr. Schmidt: GCMRC is proposing to do a science review panel for 

about $20K similar to a PEP panel that will include NPS, BOR, the states of Utah and Arizona , 

and academic sectors in order to develop a more rigorous Lake Powell water quality program.] 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of July 15, 2014, WebEx/Conference Call Page 2

   

5. GCMRC needs to work with managers and stakeholders to reduce monitoring duplicity and cost 

savings. 

Action Item: GCMRC and BOR will address the technical issues identified in the SA report. Jack and his 

staff will work with stakeholders to determine how to accomplish monitoring in FY17 due to budget 

shortfalls. A formal response will be provided to the TWG by August 1. 

Action Item: The TWG will work with GCMRC and the SA in developing a “road map” to help inform the 

AMWG in preparation for the August AMWG meeting. 

CRAHG Report to the TWG regarding FY2015-17 Budget and Workplan (attached) - Mary Barger. 

The CRAHG reviewed BOR’s budget but didn’t complete their review of all GCRMC projects: 

 GRCA Mitigation and Monitoring. There was overall support but questions on how it will be integrated with 

the PA. This will be discussed at a later date. The CRAHG also requested the proposal from Glen Canyon. 

 Zuni Associative Values. There were questions on this. In order to accommodate the changes, Glen 

proposed distributing money over next three years. However, Kurt said the work would be completed in 

FY16. 

 Project 4. There were questions on how this would fit with the PA and if monitoring would be adequate for 

meeting GCPA. The proposed monitoring plan and Amy Draut’s Aeolian processes for creating sandbars 

and doing some level of stabilization was discussed. There was overall support but inadequate funding to 

accommodate tribal review. They proposed an additional $30K. 

 Tribal TEK. This is a preliminary project but supported. Not sure how to incorporate the Park Service 

 Tribal Synthesis. A lot of conversation on how this would work. The group considered the success of 

international projects. They proposed interviews with indigenous people and managers. Phase 1 would 

include a summary of literature and interviews. Phase 2 would be developed based on results of Phase 1. 

The $50K in FY15 was moved into a FY16-17 effort. 

 Tribal River Trip. All AMP members would be invited to attend. 

 NN Removal Consultation. Some members questioned that if live removal is not being done why aren’t we 

changing the MOA? Reclamation is proposing to do a Zuni consultation trip with GCMRC and NPS. 

 Tribal NRHP Nomination. Two tribes (Hopi and Zuni) propose to do mitigation but three tribes are affected. 

Mary will work with Hualapai and Southern Paiute to determine what they intend to do. Funding was 

reduced due to overestimation. 

 Zuni requested a meeting with BOR, GCMRC, and NPS on projects that could impact or kill fish or other 

water life. Other tribes haven’t commented. 

 Project 12. How does this fits with Hualapai TEK? The CRAHG would like a workshop to identify plants that 

are culturally important. As the SA suggested, blend projects 11 and 12 to make them as successful as 

possible. Peter added that there should be more than one workshop and longer than one day. Tighten up 

the Scope of Work. 

 Project 13.2. GCMRC should discuss this project with tribes. It’s a good idea to have downstream tribal 

values incorporated but uncomfortable with people talking to elders and getting information that determines 

what makes it important. Lucas was directed to talk with the tribes. 

BOR Budget Update – Glen Knowles. Reclamation is proposing a change related to the HFEs under the 

protocol. Reclamation uses a rating curve that relates flows to develop an estimate of release. GCMRC 

and the Lees Ferry gage showed a discrepancy in recent HFEs of 2012 and 2013. The proposal is to 

install acoustic flow meters on the bypass tubes and would cost about $250K. Because this project is 

needed to measure the flow released during high flow experiments Reclamation is propose to use the 

Experimental Fund of Reclamation’s AMP budget to pay for it. This would lead to a reduction of $250k 

from the NFCCF in FY16 and FY17 ($1,110,894 in FY 16 and $1,667,414 in FY17). This is an adequate 

amount for nonnative fish control based on the current status of native fish. 

Update on SA Contract. Glen said they’re hopeful that the new contract will be awarded by October 1, 

the start of FY15. 

Status: Changes approved by consensus. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of July 15, 2014, WebEx/Conference Call Page 3

   

GCMRC Projects. Brief updates were given on the following projects: 

 Project 5 Food Base Monitoring and Research - Dr. Ted Kennedy. This project is a new standalone effort designed to continue monitoring of the aquatic food base and conduct research to 

resolve questions about the current condition of the aquatic invertebrate community in Glen 

Canyon. It will synthesize published datasets to explore the factors affecting invertebrate 

productivity, diversity, and EPT abundance throughout tailwaters in the Intermountain West. 

 Project 5.1- Identify the specific stressors that are limiting the diversity and productivity of the 

foodbase so managers will have a scientific basis for improving the foodbase. Additionally, it 

describes a flow experiment that might improve the food base be considered for implementation 

in FY15-17. 

o Leslie asked if approving the scientific work also meant approval of flows. [Glen: It 

wouldn’t because additional NEPA compliance would be needed.] 

Status: Approved by consensus with concerns noted on separation of scientific work and changing 

flows. 

 Project 4 Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum: quantifying the relative 

importance of river-related factors that influence upland geomorphology and archaeological site 

stability. This project is a continuation of what was previously Project J. It has been discussed 

with GCNP, the tribes, and with the CRAHG. 

o Project 4.1. - examines the connectivity of sand movement by wind from active channel 

sandbars to higher elevation sand landscapes. In order to evaluate the long-term 

changes, Helen proposes to work through a large set of photos that show the conditions 

of the river corridor and the archeology sites. Mary said it would be important to keep 

others involved in how the sites are ranked. 

o Don had concerns in long-term trends and seeing changes. Conclusions can’t be drawn 

by looking at just one canyon. There are other sources of sand and one can’t tell the 

difference from blowing sand or sand from an HFE. [Joel: 4.1.1 is designed to address 

that question. The rationale is to use a 5 class archeology process to rank sites by their 

proximity to sand and allow measurements to be made on the sites.] 

Status: Approved by consensus. 

 Project 11 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis of Riparian Vegetation, Landform Change 

and Aquatic-Terrestrial Linkages to Faunal Communities – Barbara Ralston and Daniel Sarr. 

Research elements of this project utilize the monitoring data to explore the utility of plant 

response-guilds 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. In the next 3 years will continue the ground base sampling and collect 

more data this fall in terms of planned occurrences and how these plants in these guilds have 

changed or diminished in relation to annual hydrology. 

 Project 11.3 – Utilizing vegetation response-guilds for integrated research of sandbars and 

riparian vegetation. A scoping workshop will be held with project principals and other scientists to 

decide the appropriate consumer taxa and field sampling locations for target studies. The 

workshop will likely be held in February and people from Dinosaur, GLCA, GRCA, Big Bend 

National Park, BLM, as well as tribal groups that have done some restoration. 

 Project 11.5 – Will conduct a science panel to look at nonnative vegetation removal and 

vegetation management in Grand Canyon to inform a potential program to be developed as part 

of LTEMP. 

Status: Approved by consensus. 

Budget for FY2016-17 Concerns: 

 There are still unfunded projects in FY15. [Jack: Appendix 2b is our request to the AMP and is 

our recommendation for how FY15 funds will be spent.] 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of July 15, 2014, WebEx/Conference Call Page 4

   

 The CRAHG recommended that Project 12 be blended with Project 11. GCMRC will work on that. 

 AGFD still has food base and SA questions. Not sure how Combining 11 and 12 will look. 

 Another webinar may be needed to adequately prepare for presentation to the AMWG. 

Dr. Schmidt will send a revised TWP to the TWG by August 1. The TWG will have a follow webinar on 

August 4. 

Draft Motion (proposed by Kevin Dahl, seconded by Jerry Cox): The TWG recommends that the AMWG 

recommend for approval, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Budget and 

Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2015-17 (Draft June 6, 2014) to the Secretary of the Interior. The revised work 

plan should include changes agreed to at the June and July TWG meetings as described in the TWG 

minutes. 

Leslie provided an addition relative to the Project 5 flow proposal requiring additional NEPA ecause BOR 

stated such flows are not covered by the 1996 ROD and suggested language that the motion does not 

provide approval for the flows described in Project 5. Kevin said he objected to this addition. She further 

asked that analysis of the flow impacts to hydropower be included as part of the proposed experiment to 

assess the impacts to hydropower. After further discussion, all agreed that the motion does not provide 

approval or a recommendation of approval for the flows identified in Project 5. Glen Knowles stated that 

such flows would require additional NEPA compliance. There was general agreement on new motion 

language.

Final Motion (proposed by Kevin Dahl, seconded by Jerry Cox): The TWG recommends that the 

AMWG recommend for approval, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial 

Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2015-17 (Draft June 6, 2014) to the Secretary of the Interior, 

provided that such approval does not include approval of flows as described in GCMRC Project 

5. The revised work plan should include changes agreed to at the June and July TWG meetings 

as described in the TWG minutes. Passed by consensus. 

October 28-29 TWG Meeting. Noting there was a conflict with the Salinity Control Forum holding their 

meeting the same week, members involved recommended moving forward with the in-person TWG 

meeting on October 28-29 anyway. A webinar could be held, but the LTEMP EIS or the potential for a 

2014 fall HFE may be good reasons for the TWG to meet and discuss in person. 

Public Comments: None. 

Adjourned: 1 p.m. (MDT) 

Respectfully submitted, 

Linda Whetton 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Region 

 
1

Review of Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Triennial Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2015‐2017

Prepared by  

David Garrett, Executive Coordinator of Science Advisors, Economics, M3Research

Lance Gunderson, Adaptive Management & Policy, Emory University

James Kitchell, Fish Ecology, University of Wisconsin

John Loomis, Non‐Market Economics, Colorado State University

Peter McIntyre, Riverine Ecology, University of Wisconsin

Barbara Mills, Anthropology and Archeology, University of Arizona

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes reviews and comments on the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management

Program (GCDAMP or AMP) proposed budget and work plan for the period 2015‐2017.   The plan was

prepared by staff of the Bureau of Reclamation and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

(GCMRC), along with input and consultation from other groups of the GCDAMP.  Aggressive

collaborative work on the plan was initiated in February 2014 when staff from GCMRC presented a

series of science findings from the previous year(s) programs to the AMP.  This led to the draft plan

being prepared in June 2014.   

The plan presents a three year set of research and monitoring activities that will be reviewed by all

groups of GCDAMP annually to assure continued effectiveness and efficiency. The Science Advisor

Executive Coordinator and Science Advisors play active roles in the review and consultation process.  

The procedure for Science Advisor input to the GCMRC 2015‐17 monitoring and science planning

process has permitted the following:  

 Involvement of the SA Executive Coordinator to provide Science Advisor input in two discussions of

the TWG, four discussions of the BAHG,  multiple exchanges of information with TWG members

including the Chair and Vice‐chair, and with the GCMRC Chief during April, May and June, 2014.  

 Request in May to the Science Advisor EC from the GCMRC Chief and TWG Chair and Vice‐Chair to

provide written comments on a Draft Prospectus of potential science plan projects, and follow‐up

participation in collaboration of the TWG and GCMRC on the most desirable projects to pursue.  

 Participation of the Science Advisors in review of the Draft 2015‐17 Monitoring and Research Tri‐

Annual Plan provided June 6, 2014, and development of this review report.  
2

The Science Advisors appreciate the request for their involvement and participation in this plan

development process. We believe the above noted interactions have permitted important exchange of

information and collaboration for the TWG and GCMRC, and input of the Science Advisors.

PROCESS

While the collaborative process for development of the three year plan occurred over a five‐month

period, this review was done over two weeks in  June. Once the plan was in draft form in early June, the

SAs were asked to evaluate both the presented monitoring and science projects and their budgets for

potential effectiveness and efficiency in meeting GCDAMP goals and desired future conditions for

resources of concern. Each of the science specialists listed above as authors provided written comments

which were collated into this report. The structure of this report is organized in three sections. The first

section presents general comments that address the entire report    in context of the overall adaptive

management programs and processes. The second section provides comments on each of the

enumerated projects. Finally, the report provides a set of recommendations for the Secretary, AMWG,

TWG, and GCMRC to consider in their continued assessment of the most appropriate management and

science programs to pursue in 2015‐2017.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON TRIENNIAL WORK PLAN

Overall this is a well thought out research plan, and certainly the most thoroughly prepared plan we

have ever reviewed.  In particular, we like the context for the  proposed research projects.  The authors

of the plan have responded to a variety of factors, such as the Assistant Secretary’s direction (as

provided in two memos), the Grand Canyon Protection Act, Strategic Science Questions (SSQ), desired

future resource conditions (DFCs) Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMIN) and Research Information

Needs (RIN). While not the only factors that should be influencing the direction of research for the next

three years, they are certainly important factors.  In addition, the research teams assembled have

excellent track records of collaboration and research output in their areas of expertise.

All plans, like this one, present opportunities for improvements and the following comments by the

Science Advisors should be taken in that vein. Each advisor takes this task seriously and looks deeply for

areas where we can offer assistance in improving the plan.  As will be borne out in our many review

comments, GCMRCs leadership and staff have presented projects and proposed procedures that are

extremely well designed and presented.  As such the SAs find few significant faults with the plan and

endorse all projects presented with changes proposed.   Even then, we encourage the GCDAMP to

consider all our comments as opportunities to improve the plan.

Our general comments are described more fully in the following paragraphs with these general

headings.      

 Program and budget plans.  

 Budget suitability.

 Adaptive Management and collaborative processes.

 Systems assessment and systems models.
3

 Integration of science projects and integration of science and management.

 Revision of selected program administration.  

Program and Budget Plans: The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, established

in1996 by the Glen Canyon Dam EIS, was originally administratively structured around an annual

science program and budget review process by stakeholders, agencies, and a research centers

staff. The Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) led by the Secretary’s Designee and with

its Technical Work Group (TWG) for support, was responsible for collaboration with the Grand

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) in recommending to the Secretary

management and science direction and required budgets. The first 5‐‐7 years required extensive

collaboration of stakeholders and scientists in development and refining the new adaptive

management and science program direction required in the EIS. To provide longer term

planning, a strategic science plan was developed and updated by GCMRC (1997/2007) and a

management strategy was developed by the AMWG (2004). However, over this entire period

the intense annual budget and project development process dominated planning and appeared

to limit AMWG, TWG and GCMRC time to develop more focus on needed long‐term science and

management strategies. As noted both GCMRC and AMWG have developed strategic planning

documents, but they are not living documents that are evaluated by management or science on

even 5‐7 year intervals. They are not used for continued reference to determine where the

annual programs are in reference to where the Secretary would like them to be in 5‐7 years. The

new three year plan proposed for this review could be the opportunity for the AMP to

accomplish improved short term (1‐3 years) and longer term (5‐7 years) planning. Three years

provides sufficient time to implement a multi‐year tiered program and gain some assessment of

both its potential success and needs over a longer term.  However, we note that bringing major

lines of research to completion generally requires more than 3 years, hence there is an

important role for both program review on a 3‐year cycle and continued focus and funding on a

set of core topics over multiple 3‐year funding cycles. This proposed plan taken in two cycles

could provide possibly an effective format for long term planning. However, to accomplish that

end the AMP should consider several improvements and changes to the plan in the current cycle

(2015‐2017), including: improved integrated science planning; improved inclusion  of BOR, other

federal, state and tribal agency management and science programs explicitly connected to this

program; incorporating and approving the complete elements of a core monitoring plan directly

into this plan; and incorporating strategic management and science guidelines directly into this

plan. Such a process, of course, is fully dependent on the policy direction to be laid out in the

EIS/LTEMP. Once that policy direction is in place, perhaps AMWG/TWG/GCMRC could expand

this instrument in 2016 or 2017 to include the above‐discussed changes. It would be more

effective as a short‐term plan reviewed every three years if it had these components built into

it. And, it could service as a long‐term strategic plan that could be reviewed at six‐year intervals.

This approach would seem to be more effective and efficient than production of separate long‐

term plans that are not working documents.

An example of significant programs deserving more inclusion is cultural resources.  They are not

mentioned in some of the projects even though justification for data collection includes benefits

for managing these resources.  Projects that collect important time‐series data, such as Project
4

3, should explicitly include some areas that are archaeological so that the very intensive data

collection being done could also be used to benefit management and research of cultural

resources.   And, related to this is reviews. Independent research oversight panels that are

convened should include cultural resource experts to help to ensure the integration of cultural

and natural resources in both management and research goals.   

A second example are is that the compartmentalization and possible redundancy of data

collection for individual projects could be easily seen as needing improvement with a more

systematic program strategy.   More collaboration among the scientists to see what data

collection strategies could be used across projects needs to be done. Many of the same data

collection techniques will be used across projects and there could be more explicit discussion of

collaborative methods (e.g., citizen science, remote sensing, LiDAR).  There also could be more

discussion of how research and management goals intersect across projects, not just within

each project.   

The organization and layout of the plan could be improved for communication to the GCDAMP

stakeholders and a wider audience.   It is a large document, just short of 500 pages.   Its

complexity and importance calls for a well designed and written executive summary that can

stand as an independent document. As such all elements of this plan would be addressed in the

executive summary. This would greatly extend its utility. The plan itself would also benefit from

periodic guides in the text so that the reader would know what to expect and to provide logic

for the overall report.   Because of its complexity, there is limited indication to the uneducated

as to how and why all projects fit together.   Also, the level of detail varied across budget items.  

The overall budget never appears in the document, only as an appendix.   As such, there was

continued emphasis on outlining activities and costs for each program or project, rather than as

a whole.    

Budget suitability: In this plan, budgets are presented for program areas and projects, and the

overall budget is placed as an appendix. A budget summary is needed in the introduction.  Even

though some new programs are costly, they may represent changes of less than 5% in overall

activity, and none represent major departures from the general program direction. Budget in

individual projects are addressed in a later section.  Even then, the overall proposed budget

allocations are somewhat similar to the approved 2013‐14 program direction, which were

determined satisfactory for maintaining science, and management direction toward the

Secretary and stakeholder goals, lines of research, and questions being addressed. Regarding

budget directed toward major science questions of concern to the AMP, several significant

accomplishments regards long‐term learning have occurred in the past decade along with

launches of several new programs with significant associated findings. Clearly, some of the long‐

term projects have accomplished several of their objectives and, therefore, have been able to

reduce the frequency and intensity of sampling effort. This also demonstrates budget suitability

in maintaining progress toward important goals. Nonetheless, some concerns may exist

regarding longer‐term budget needs and potential commitments. With reference to the final

five years of the GCES programs and the first five years of GCMRC programs, it would appear

that GCMRC today at best has stable short term budgets. It is apparent that AMP scientists and

managers may be required to address more challenging problems and questions in the next five

years. GCMRC facility cost increases alone will challenge the ability of managers and scientists to

maintain learning necessary to resolve issues in physical, biotic, and socio‐cultural programs.

And, although much has been learned about the biology in this system and its implications to
5

HBC survival and improvement, much uncertainty still exists regards impacts of food base,

predation and habitat. The fish is improving but the science cannot clearly say why. Water

temperature is considered a potential factor that could have negative effects in all of the above

areas but, and even though a fund is maintained to at least respond to predation it may not be

sufficient.  SAs recommendations for development of capability (selective withdrawal device

SWD) to cool downstream waters if future warm water projections occur is still under study. The

Upper Colorado River Commission allocates over $2 million annually to non‐native control

compared to an annual average of less than $.3 million in the AMP.  Many national and regional

projections of climate change characterize the Southwest and Colorado River Basin to have

more change relative to other U.S regions. Those changes reflect increases in ambient

temperatures as well as water temperatures, reductions in precipitation, greater variance in

weather patterns, and potentially more intense weather events. This system (GCD) currently has

no management capability such as a SWD to mitigate increasing water temperature although it

has been studied.   Without this capability threats to HBC would seem to increase significantly.  

Regarding this three year plan, it would appear that the above noted issues and  projections are

of sufficient significance to this system to warrant a proposal for a new multifaceted

science/management thrust in the GCMRC program and the associated required budget. This

would be a strategic activity at this time and perhaps it is planned to be addressed in a separate

strategic plan. However, as noted above, a strategic plan is not proposed. Even if that were the

case it would seem that some proposed program activities and necessary funding would at least

be evident in 2017 programs to address additional science and management needs. Some

needed activities would include: closer formal collaboration of managers/scientists across the

entire Colorado River Basin, development of a systematic and linked basin‐wide approach to

model, monitor and assess change in and impacts to key indicators, closer evaluation of a SWD,

and at least projections of potential program and budget needs for these efforts. Since there is

currently no other AM program on the Colorado River with the capabilities to monitor large

riverine areas for effects of climate change on water temperature  physical/biotic/social

resources, one would assume such activities would occur in the AMP and be addressed in this

plan.  Their omission is a major oversight. It is our assumption that it does not appear here

because of its development in the EIS/LTEMP, and that it will be incorporated in this document

in 2016.  That would in fact be more appropriate, and perhaps that could be noted in this

document. Chapter 2 lists the criteria for development of the budget and these criteria lay a

good foundation for understanding that process. However, there is no mention here of

recommendations from the various Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs) that have been performed

in the last few years, some of which include climate change impacts. Including these would be

beneficial to ensure that all identified research themes and related budget needs have been

incorporated. We suggest that a summary of overall budgets be included as part of the

introduction, with the detailed document retained as an appendix. It is not clear why there is a

need for two separate facilitator. We agree that there could be a healthy role for such a

position, but it could surely be shared between AMWG and TWG and even then might not

require full‐time staff. It is not clear why overnight mail costs are considered for these meetings;

it is far more cost‐effective to email documents prior to the meeting, then provide hard copies

on request as contributors arrive. NPS permitting costs for permitting the proposed projects

seem excessive given that almost all project elements have 3‐year time frames and hence

should require labor‐intensive permitting only in FY2014 or 2015.  Given that the stated goal of

the Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund is non‐native fish control, it is not clear why

major spending commitments regard native fish studies (364k of 824k).  If the balance of 460k is

sufficient to cover all non‐native fish control efforts, why is the budget so large in the first place?  
6

We appreciate the need to have contingency funds available to act quickly if exotic species

expand their range unexpectedly or trout densities rise enough to trigger removal efforts.  

However, it would be cleaner to keep these separate, so that ongoing research projects on

native fishes would not be jeopardized by events that require non‐native control, and likewise

promises for native fish research do not have to compete with appropriate response to changes

in non‐native species status when allocation decisions must be made.  Finally, the rationale for

the enormous ramp‐up of these funds for FY15‐17 is needed.  Proposing to spend that much

money on an oral history seems like money that could be better spent on other efforts. There

are a tremendous number of documents on AMWG, GCDAMP, etc. that are available on the web

since the inception of these efforts, so the incremental gain from an oral history seems minimal

compared to other opportunities available to the Public Outreach Program. The Web page

development process could receive more support. It is a program that can provide real‐time

access to all the AMP completed and planned program activities for the general public.  

Adaptive Management and Collaborative Processes:  In reading the plan, several general

program activities stand out to bolster ones confidence that active adaptive management

processes are in place. Obvious improvements are occurring in research efforts directed toward

implementing experimental manipulations, monitoring impacts, and revising management

actions such as high flow events, non‐native fish control, and HBC translocations.  These

examples of the adaptive management paradigm are commendable, as is enhancing the role of

citizen science.  Moreover, it is clear that collaboration between GCMRC and BOR is active in

management actions and science with regard to high flow program implementation, modeling

applications in Lake Powell, and funding critical fish ecology projects.  We were also pleased to

see that collaboration amongst GCMRC scientists and agency managers is expanding relative to

the 2013‐14 proposals, ranging from brown trout and RBT control to HBC translocations and

assessments. It is difficult to determine how much adaptive management accomplishments are

needed for the AM process to be considered successful in the AMP. One must first look at the

evidence of AM processes being in place and also being actively pursued. A second is to

determine if real outcomes are a product of using the AM processes. Although this is not a

specific review of AM application in the AMP we believe that generally there is evidence that

AM processes are being pursued, and that important accomplishment is and will continue to

result from that pursuit. The GCDAMP has been in existence since 1996 and it has demonstrated

accomplishment in the AM paradigm. As noted, it has implemented several complex adaptive

management actions, including high flow releases, endangered fish translocation, non‐native

species control, etc., and modified these strategies through progressive science and monitoring

learning processes. We also believe that any management direction such as AM has continued

opportunity for improvement. The Asst. Sec. and AMWG determined in 2014 that revised

management actions and programs could be important to the cultural resources program and

the 2015‐17 Plan proposes improvements in emphasis, funding, collaboration, monitoring, and

research. We see these actions as important for improving AM effectiveness. Without an in

depth assessment of AM application in the GCDAMP, it is difficult to determine if major changes

are required. It might be important to actually make AM processes and accomplishments a

formal part of the Tri‐Annual Plan review process every three years. That is, AMWG and TWG

and the AM processes they implement are critical elements to the AMP, but these elements are

not reviewed and directly evaluated for accomplishment. After 18 years, perhaps the AM

process itself needs revision in the AMP. Referred to “double loop learning” in application of AM

processes, some programs have changed after formal assessments.  We recognize that further

assessment efforts would impose further costs on the overall GCDAMP process, and would
7

distract the scientific team from its core mission. Perhaps a brief lower cost review might be

considered for direction by the SAs in 2015 in concert with the brief review of the 2016

program.  

System Assessments and Systems Models:  Arguments have been made consistently over the

last two decades in multiple reviews that the complexity of the ecosystem under study and the

science and management programs applied demand some type of ecosystem model to help

guide most appropriate paths for management and science. Along with others, the SAs have

proposed this direction in several reviews. Development of systems models and sub‐systems

models have occurred and several are being utilized to guide both science and management in

this program. Both ecological system models to guide science and management system models

to evaluate policies have been discussed. The SAs have strongly endorsed that an ecosystem

science model be developed and used to guide strategic planning.  GCMRCs past work led by

Walters should be reviewed in this regard. The SAs have also encouraged that an overall systems

model for the Colorado River Basin should also be developed. It would have to be an open

model that at least permitted evaluation of potential impacts that are exogenous to the

currently defined CRE for the GCDAMP, especially potential perturbations due to changes in

climate and direct  environmental alterations arising from new policy decisions. System models

are very expensive. Should the stakeholders support development of a basin wide system

model, the AMWG should define specifically what it must accomplish. Given future climate

implications to the Colorado River as a whole, would it be best for AMWG to collaborate on a

basin wide system model that would have greater focus on refined assessment of policy and

management actions in the system and how they might affect critical habitat requirements,

water availability for desired recreation and water development, energy production, etc.? That

is, should the AMP be a partner in a basin wide model with other Colorado River programs? The

approach could have greater focus on learning regarding impacts of basin wide impacts of

management actions and natural phenomenon on general regional physical, biotic, and social

resource needs rather than trying to refine the model to predict the specific impacts of marginal

habitat changes on biotic species of concern and local social issues. GCMRCs and other basin

programs science projects and associated ecosystem models could be tasked with this learning

need.  However, the SAs also recognize that such efforts can substantially dilute efforts away

from specific needs of the ecosystem and social systems responding  to Glen Canyon dam, and

hence should receive significant planning.   

Integration of science projects and integration of management and science:  The AMP overall

program has had one review since inception  by the National Academy of Sciences that stressed

the need for system‐based science approaches, linkages and integration of differing resource

science and monitoring projects and approaches, and greater integration of management and

science approaches. The Science Advisors have stressed the importance of these approaches in

several reviews including the 2013‐14 Plan review, and the TWG and AMWG have also

expressed the need for these efforts. This being said, there have been significant

accomplishments in the last five years in all these areas as noted in this review, and the 2015‐17

plan is demonstrating improved approaches and accomplishments in all areas. In reality,

because of the complexity of this science and management program, and the detail that must
8

be provided at the project level, it is difficult to actually interpret all the integration that is

occurring. Often plans of this complexity will devote an entire first chapter that presents a clear

picture of the overarching aims of the program, its long term target outcomes, adaptive

management and science methodologies to ensure critically needed science and management

integration including system models and approaches for conflict resolution, application of

results, addressing policy changes, etc. Such an approach could improve this plan. We believe

that Project Element 13.3 Decision Support System (DSS) that is proposed is an important step in

that direction. The development of the Decision Support System should be able to utilize

information from numerous Project elements proposed in this Triennial Work Plan and point out

any research gaps that need to be filled in the next Triennial Science Plan to enhance those

linkages.  We also applaud the fact that Project 10—a new initiative—is synthetic in its

approach.  

Revisions in selected program administration:  Concerns by USGS over any potential perceived

conflict of their administering the Science Advisor Program budget has resulted in transfer of

this program administration to BOR. The Science Advisors do not see this as conflicting with the

stated purpose of the program if its tasks and activities continue to be specified by the AMWG

and independent unbiased reviews by a group of science specialists are permitted as prescribed

in the operating procedures for the Science Advisor Program. It seems reasonable that BOR

could administer the SA Program contract in an objective manner. However, for it to be effective

as an independent review and service program, its services and outcomes should be available to

all stakeholders and GCMRC as specified annually by the AMWG. It should also be permitted to

provide some level of review and service input to AMP entities as specified in the SA Operating

Procedures even if the level of budget support must be reduced due to budget constraints.

These outputs should be provided independently by the SAs’ representative(s) to the

AMWG/TWG/GCMRC in open forum so as to prevent potential bias from any individual party in

the AMP. Based on past requirements and expected future SA program requirements the

proposed budget of $70‐$80 K would seem to require AMWG to review the SA Operating

Procedure and prescribe selected reductions in service/review activities for the necessary RFP.

We are concerned that due to the timing of the program transfer and time requirements for

contracting, the AMWG/TWG/GCMRC will not have access to an independent science group for

an undetermined amount of time in FY 2015.

It is proposed that the Lake Powell program administration is also to be moved to BOR. The SAs

have proposed in past reviews that if it is moved to another agency the general activities of this

program should be retained. It also has been proposed in past SA reviews that this program

needs to have an AMWG and agency review regarding how it can best contribute to specified

AMP or agency goals, DFCs, critical questions, etc. in the future. For example, are the types of

data collected and the intensity of sampling necessary to respond to agency needs? Should the

analysis work continue on all the biological samples?  Could an assessment be made of a subset

of samples that have already been analyzed to determine if this data offers potential for

learning beyond what would be expected given current existing knowledge from other western

reservoirs?   Certainly, the modeling capabilities cooperatively developed by BOR and GCMRC

(CE‐QUAL‐ W2) seem to be important current tools for agencies and would seem important to a

basin wide management policy modeling approach should it ever be pursued.  
9

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE OVERALL TRIENNIAL WORK PLAN.  

This Triennial Science Plan presented is the most comprehensive and complex plan ever presented to

the AMP.  It is a very professional presentation.  A complement to both GCMRC and the TWG is that one

has difficulty dismissing any project as not of important value to this program.  The SAs find all projects

to be worthy of pursuit and encourage their inclusion as possible with recommendations for change

provided.  In addition, the proposing scientists, program administrators, and reviewers alike would

benefit from creating a more consistent template for each proposal element.  We were impressed with

the structure introduced in Project 5, where background information included key graphics summarizing

existing data, and each element included coverage of both the scientific rationale and management

implications.  

Project 1, Lake Powell:  The Lake Powell program and its importance to the AMP direction has

been an [LG1]ongoing discussion since inception of the AMP. The AMWG In‐and‐Out Committee

and the CRe definition of AMP boundaries downstream of GCD has created  extensive

discussions of how this particular  program could best serve the AMP. It is now recommended in

this plan that this program be shifted administratively to the BOR. How and where this program

is administered is the purview of the Secretary and we believe it would not effect how its

outcomes could support basin programs like the AMP. The SAs in past reviews have noted that a

program in Lake Powell is critical to continued learning of how natural perturbations (climate)

and human interventions (policy and management) will effect water quality and quantity

variances in the CRe. As such the SAs have supported continuation of these programs. That

being said the SA reviews have been critical of the fact that the program’s budgets and

productivity have been allocated to production of data without clear science plans as to how

that data will be used to advance management and  learning related to critical goals and

resource questions of the AMP. Early reviews found that even data development was not

properly automated, verified for accuracy, and timely reported. Although this has been

corrected regarding physical parameters, extensive biological data assessments are still

backlogged. Another primary criticism was the absence of effective plans for data analysis and

interpretation, which appears in this plan to be in process. A very positive outcome has been the

collaborative GCMRC/BOR effort on the CE‐QUAL model, and this may in part provide good basis

for transfer of administration. With recent issues of shortages, increased water demands in the

basin, changing use and management policies, and the potential impacts of climate change, Lake

Powell management and science programs will become more critical to all managers and users

in the basin. We believe, therefore, that an effective Lake Powell program will be more critical

to the AMP and basin in the future. There are many critical questions that will need to be

addressed. What are the expected future water temperature changes in the CRe?  We do not

see the evidence of strong pursuit in this plan. What are the science analyses necessary for us to

best predict temperature and other water quality changes, including biological parameters?  

Efforts to date on modeling are to determine short‐term (1‐2 years) outcomes of expected

values. But climate change is now forecasted with greater certainty for the Southwest. Are not

the climate change prospects and water level, volume, and water temperature changes critical

to long‐term management and science issues? Will not water released at the dam be drawn

from somewhere closer to the thermocline?  Will that not mean that water temperature will

increase in the main‐stem, as occurred last decade, with high likelihood of significant impacts to

aquatic biology?  Since a management tool is not in place to mitigate, is it or can it be planned.
10

And, are not GCD and Lake Powell critical water management tools in this basin?  It would

appear that the answer to most of these statements is yes. If so, the question raised in the

general comments is then raised again here. The GCDAMP is currently the most capable

program in the Colorado River Basin to plan and implement a program to address these issues,

and seemingly a Lake Powell based collaborative initiative on systems analysis of the basin and

mitigative management and science strategies would be planned. Yet, it is not in this plan. We

conclude as above that it awaits policy direction from the EIS, which seems most appropriate.  

Project 2:  The monitoring of water quality and sediment transport is fundamental to evaluating

changing riparian and aquatic habitats in many other projects. It appears that the proposing

investigators have identified appropriate timescales, locations, and methods for profiling the

water quality and sediment fluxes in the main river channel and select tributaries. Integration

with other programs is demonstrated in collaborative work of these project scientists with other

projects conducting interpretation of findings to biotic and cultural resources. Other major

accomplishments are web‐based efforts to continually create improved public real time access

to data. Two questions always exist with costly monitoring programs. The first relates to

stakeholder level of need for information as regards type and degree of specificity. The plan

reviews in the last decade would indicate the program is responding to information desired and

using several direct and indirect methods to provide the information to stakeholders and

managers. The second question relates to methodologies used for data development, analysis

and interpretation to managers and stakeholders. Again,  reviews would indicate that ongoing

assessments of improved science and methods are evaluated and implemented as proven more

effective. New technologies are especially important to sediment transport and, perhaps, might

be very useful in collecting sand budget data, which are critical to evaluating both sand storage

and beach building and loss. What could possibly help at this juncture and especially on

completion of the EIS is a reassessment of AMWG explicit information needs when cast against

goals and critical questions being pursued. This process by AMWG/TWG would assure that only

necessary information is being required of the GCMRC to assure future needed flexibility in

science and management programs and budgets.  

Overall, the proposal would be considerably more compelling if it focused more on evidence

that continued monitoring and upgraded methods can change our perspectives.  Even for strong

supporters of monitoring, it is worrisome to perceive that the effort of monitoring itself takes

precedent over creative use of the data to inform fundamental understanding and real‐world

management.  That was the sense conveyed by the proposal; while 2 full pages of lists of

relevant agency priorities/mandates was provided, only a single paragraph (“Recent research on

the Colorado...”) offered any specific indication of how the new data can boost understanding

and improve management.  How wrong were we with 60 minute time resolution instead of 15

minutes?  How much change in sediments was observed during the ongoing drought compared

to before?  How might these data inform future climate change adaptation efforts?  Just how

are these data used to trigger and evaluate the High Flow Protocol?  Tackling these kinds of

issues with even a few sentences would go a long way toward justifying associated budgets.   

The work is really important, but it appears that funding success is taken for granted by the

proposers (although SA sabers were rattled regarding the calamitous consequences of under‐

funding this monitoring).[p2]
11

The website is a great concept, though it took several minutes to create a figure of just 6 years

of data (even requested in the early AM when server demand would be low).  That suggests that

the server is badly underpowered or overtaxed, and/or that the coding is far from optimized

(e.g. using default bias settings, as most users would, should allow instantaneous generation of

graphs because all values can be pre‐calculated).  The duration curve will indeed be a welcome

addition, though the proposal makes it sound like a major technological feat when in fact every

aspect of presenting such a graphic and allowing user‐defined calculations is very easy to code

and serve.

As noted in the introduction to this project, the data collected are used for a number of other

investigations, including those related to socio‐cultural resources (p. 55). This project would

benefit from integration of archaeologically and culturally significant sites.  It isn’t clear how the

important information that is being collected and will be collected is actually being used or could

be used to monitor the impacts on cultural resources in the CRe.  Thus, while it is stated that

“Collaborations also exist between this project and every other funded physical‐sciences and

biology project at the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, mostly in a supporting

role, and with researchers in academia” (p. 61) no mention is made of collaborations with

archaeologists, or that the locations and physical attributes of archaeological sites are in any

way being looked at as part of their work with the USGS Center for Integrated Data Analytics

(CIDA).  If it is, it should be mentioned how and what the results have been.

Project 3: This project has significant focus on the impacts of HFEs and intervening flows on

riverine sediment abundance, movement, and storage. It also has focus on sandbar

development and maintenance in the system, and modeling of sandbars in the system. It

continues to address through both monitoring and research one of the most critical questions of

the AMP, i.e., can appropriately managed high flow events and other required flows through

time provide general stability to the number, location, and size of sandbars in the system. The

program also provides critically needed inputs to understand flow regime impacts to riparian

and aquatic habitats. Extensive funding is proposed for 2015/16 to evaluate differing data

recovery methods and data quality to assess sediment and sandbar conditions. It is difficult to

determine explicitly from the write‐ups if duplicated effort exists. Most of this project effort,

approximately $1.2M is directed at providing definitive assessments of the status of sediment

and sandbar resources through multiple approaches. It was unclear whether the increased

effort to gather higher resolution data will truly be more informative. Again the question

addressed above might be posed.  Would less data resolution serve managers well and also save

costs?   

Objective 3 proposes to utilize some of these data to develop and refine a model to predict

sandbar development and variance in the system and how that variance is linked to operations

management, including normal operations as well as event flows such as HFEs. Development

and testing is to occur through the 2015‐17 period at approximately $100 K per year. It is not

made clear how this modeling effort will integrate in overall AMP and EIS program

accomplishments, including Argonne’s sandbar modeling efforts in the LTEMP. The two

modeling approaches use different methods but seem to be addressing similar if not the same
12

questions. Although costly, this modeling project is addressing one of the most critical problems

in the AMP. If in fact duplication exists by design it could be useful in moving more quickly to

more effective monitoring methods and improved modeling in the three‐year period. In total

over $0.3 million may be expended in three years in this modeling effort, which seems cost

effective if successful. Results from Project 3 should also provide useful information on the

distribution and size of camping beaches, an important element in visitor satisfaction. On the

surface it appears that parts of projects 2 and 3 could be integrated to reduce costs, and yet

each project element provides critical elements to overall goals and objectives. Further,

assessment of costs for each element does not reveal excessive expenditure.[p3] However, this

should not preclude a closer look at potential cost savings from integration.  

  

There were several more detailed issues that merit consideration.  Element 3.1 focuses on

sandbar dynamics, but seemed to treat each potential influence as being independent of others.

An ‘experimental design’ perspective might be more informative, wherein sandbar growth and

loss rates can be envisioned as integrating the effects of location in the river, bar configuration,

local currents and sand inputs, event characteristics (HFEs, etc.), and interaction among these

factors.  Such an integrative way of thinking would be more powerful than treating each as an

independent predictor.  The work could then merge bathymetric and topographic perspectives

by testing the spatial association between riverbed dynamics and sandbar dynamics.  This

merger would align with the overall geohydrological approach: is sand transport a local or long‐

distance phenomenon, and how does that scale with event size?  By determining the scale at

which sand exchange between bed and bar occurs, it would be easier to reconcile the

interpretation of data from individual sandbars with the large‐scale flux view of mass balance

between tributary inputs and reservoir sink.

More generally, it was striking that no work was proposed on climate or other controls on sand

loading from tributaries, or delivery of sand to the downstream reservoir.  Those topics seem

the logical way to tackle the sustainability context raised repeatedly in the background section.  

Figure 8 is fascinating, and prompts the question of whether it is coincidence that the one site

where high‐resolution data indicates major reductions in sand bar elevation is also the site

where the validation of the RS approach is also very weak?  It seems this could indicate that the

RS approach works well for growing sandbars but poorly for shrinking ones.  That has important

direct implications, but could also point the way toward methodological refinements that enable

better estimation of flattening sandbars using RS.  The SFM approach is a nice addition as a high‐

risk, high‐reward element, and it was good to see the precision will be quantified to pave the

way for citizen science implementation.  But why does the methods comparisons focus on

down‐sampled data to make high‐res methods comparable in sample density to low‐res

methods, when the more salient comparisons would be comparing the gold‐standard (LIDAR) to

SFM and total‐station without any down sampling?  It seems the key aim is knowing how well

each can perform in an absolute sense, which dictates which constitutes the minimum

acceptable effort to achieve adequate accuracy.  Similarly, under element 3.2, why not validate

using new aerial imagery that could be directly compared the 3 methods proposed in the

previous element (SFM approach).  I understand that value of the historical perspective, but

comparing against multiple methods in the present would provide richer validation and

methods development possibilities.   
13

As the ‘long‐reach’ approach is discussed (p103), does the failure of the three small‐scale

sampling strategies to yield the larger‐scale mass balance simply suggest that the wrong

predictors are being used in sample site stratification?  Apparently it is not enough to focus on

large eddies, but it is not clear that the team has fully mined the 2000‐2004 data by comparing

depth changes to other mapped characteristics (depth, flow velocity and vectors, proximity to

bars, nearest upstream or downstream riffle, etc.).  It seems there must be some way to predict

which places are most dynamic if the old data are mined more fully?  Also, it was surprising that

hyporheic issues were not mentioned.  Perhaps some hydrological tracers of hyporheic

exchange would help to predict locations where bed thickness is likely to be dynamic (by virtue

of reflecting both substrate characteristics and hydraulic forcing).  With regard to sonar

application (p105), similar efforts are underway even with single‐beam sonar in lake

environments‐‐ see lakemap.com for details.  They use a standard Lowrance echo‐sounder and

can resolve macrophytes and hard vs soft substrates.  To validate your methods (p107), will you

collect grab samples of surface sediments and plant material.  That is important since you are

expanding the spatial scale of surveys enormously, and the identification of bryophytes and

chlorophytes seems like a reach.

Finally, a few statistical comments.  The test of predictors of sand bar change (p118) is a perfect

application for boosted regression trees, which deal nicely with non‐linear predictions and

complex interactions.  They also offer the capacity to predict unstudied areas from the suite of

descriptors, though that is more complex than with multiple regression or other basic

parametric approaches because there is no singular predictive equation.  The idea of grouping

sites is unlikely to be informative because groupings result in: a) reduced statistical power to

detect and estimate influence of a particular predictor, b) losing the capacity to use small

deviations in multiple predictors among broadly similar sites to inform fitting of each predictor

(i.e. groups will still have modest heterogeneity, but that information is discarded in fitting), and

c) lower large‐scale predictive power over treating sites individually.  In any case, that empirical

descriptive statistical approach will be a nice complement to the mechanistic LES modeling

approach.  It is also admirable that the team will establish a control network to ensure

consistent elevational standards for application to all types of data being collected for this and

other Projects, but most readers would benefit from clear presentation of some what‐if

scenarios.  How badly would the research mission be compromised if the control network did

not exist (since it currently doesn't)?  For instance, what would the consequences be of not

having the RS and field observations of sand bar height on the same precise elevational

benchmark?

According to the plan, the project has three research components, but as with Project 2, none of

these explicitly addresses the integration of archaeological resources into the models. Nor do

the “key monitoring and research questions addressed in this project” (pp. 81‐82) specifically

mention archaeological sites. Nonetheless, this is an important project and the monitoring

portion could be extremely valuable for assessing impacts on archaeological sites, assuming that

areas that are targeted for repeat photography, remote sensing, etc., are areas with

archaeological sites or other culturally significant areas.  However, there isn’t anything in the

plan that states that the sampling strategy included consideration of archaeological sites and/or

culturally significant areas. Many of the cultural resources may not be directly affected by this
14

specific project because they are above the elevations being studied, but if they are in areas that

overlap with sandbar areas and could be included in the studies then they should be explicitly

part of the sampling design. The plan mentions that there is “a pressing need to develop a

representative sandbar sampling design” (p. 97), so now would be the time to add areas with

archaeological sites to the areas being sampled. The subproject (Project Element 3.5) to support

the geodesic control network has important contributions to make to archaeological site

monitoring as well as other research projects.

Project 4:  Project 4 represents one of the main investigations into cultural resources during the

next three years. The sub‐plans to the project each tackle (1) mapping with remote sensing

techniques areas of “active aeolian sand” and quantitative analyses to understand the sources

and interactions with other elements such as barriers; and (2) analysis of historical photographs

to more qualitatively assess landscape change associated with active erosion. The latter will

result in the preparation of a long‐term monitoring plan. The proposed components in the plan

aim to determine rates of erosion that will contribute to the desired goal of preservation in

place. So, understanding rates of erosion is extremely important for planning purposes, and

especially for the Long‐Term Experimental and Management Plan. However, we are concerned

about effective specification of this project and it is difficult to connect directly the science

effort in 4.1 and 4.2 to expressed stakeholder needs for mitigating impacts from dam operations

to archeological sites. Research has been ongoing for multiple years to evaluate the relationship

of fluvial processes below 45K CFS flows and geomorphic processes above 45K CFS flows.

However, although establishing association, proofs are lacking to justify full entry into the

proposed monitoring approach. The projects small sample size should be increased and TCPs

added. It is not clear that the effort is a priority for Tribes. According to the Triennial Work Plan

(p. 149), the research project is tied to suggestions in the prior Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP)

and addresses Strategic Science Questions (p. 151). A concern is that it is not clear if this would

be considered the highest priority cultural resources research program to pursue for the next

three years. For example, ongoing work involves the classification of archaeological sites in

terms of the origin of sediments being deposited at archaeological sites, barriers to aeolian

deposition, and prevailing wind directions. The result is a 5‐category classification based on a

small number of sites and the goal is to expand the number of sites classified (n=13).  A larger

sample is definitely needed and if the project is approved work should continue on this project

to better understand the multivariate nature of deposition. Understanding why these sites are

not receiving sufficient sediment deposit to stabilize the sites is a complex process, and  

variances related to assessments are high, at least in part to small sample size. It, therefore, may

be unwise to launch a monitoring program of these processes in 4.2 at significant costs without

stronger empirical support for the original stated hypothesis and increased sample sizes. As this

sample is increased, it needs to include not just archaeological sites but also other TCPs.  

Identification of erosion to other kinds of cultural resources needs to be explicitly integrated

into the project. This was a recommendation of the PEP report (Doelle 2000) and also brought

out in the legacy monitoring review committee report by Kintigh and others.

The greatest concerns with the project are (1) understanding its potential contribution to Tribes

or the NPS in assisting mitigation strategies for archeological sites affected by dam operations;

(2) how the plan objectives will be achieved for all sites given the very small sample of sites that

are included in 4.1; (3) how data from the quantitative and qualitative analyses will be
15

integrated; (4) how can changing weather patterns affect application of potential results, and

how could it be mitigated? and (5) LiDAR seems to be an integral part of the project but funding

for the technology has not been secured (see p. 44).  Many of these issues relate to insufficient

science effort in plan specification an interaction with Tribes and manager. Some of these

concerns might be alleviated by inclusion of more detailed information in the plan. For example,

how many of the total archeological sites that are determined to be impacted by flow

operations in the canyon have attributes expressed in this research? Although not disclosed in

the project description, we assume knowledge exists of this number and it is a significant

percent of the total to support the need for this effort. If the entire approach, i.e. hypothesis

testing and monitoring protocols, is successful how will they assist resource managers—i.e. NPS

and the tribes in implementing mitigation strategies? Again unless improved science design can

be presented, this seems an area where funds might better be used to pursue management

actions. A goal for the project might best be to produce information to help anticipate worst‐

case scenarios and develop management actions to mitigate irreplaceable losses. Further

documentation of site classification is perhaps helpful, but information on specific vulnerabilities

and how management could mitigate them seems just as important. The use of LiDAR to answer

the question of whether NPS use of check dams to reduce erosion gullies relative to areas

without check dams is a part of the project that would follow this reasoning. In principle, this

may be an extremely important project to conduct for the cultural resources if the methods and

models could be implemented. The science presentation is not sufficient to produce confidence

in these outcomes.  

  

Project 5: This project presents new program thrusts related to EPT absence/low abundance in

the Glen Canyon/Marble Canyon reaches; continuation of work on invertebrate drift in the river

and primary productivity monitoring in the Glen and Marble Canyon reaches. The Colorado

River below the dam exhibits a remarkable absence and rarity of insect groups found in other

river systems. This group of investigators face an interesting set of problems owing to

interactions of variable flow velocities and temperature effects as causes for the low diversity

and low productivity observed in the river below the dam. The possible solutions are also

complex and difficult to test. The issue presents a tough restoration problem. Answers will be

importantly related to food web interactions. Comparative insect drift studies conducted in river

reaches above Lake Powell and those in the canyon below the dam may offer important insight

about what is possible vs. what simply won’t work due to life history constraints within the

realm of current management practices of flow variability and temperature effects. A

parsimonious outcome may be very helpful in evaluation of management possibilities and

priorities. I strongly suggest that this is a very worthwhile effort. Management needs to know if

and how the challenges of evolutionary history can be accommodated and, therefore, what

expectations are realistic. Developing a bottom‐up modeling approach will be helpful in

evaluation of the top‐down constraints apparent in the productivity of higher trophic levels.

Overall, the monitoring of invertebrate drift and associated budget is in major part a

continuation of needed assessments of habitat quality for main‐stem native fish and rainbow

trout resources. The proposal for sampling work in the upper Colorado River to provide the

context for ongoing assessments in the CRE would help validate methodologies. These benefits

must be weighed against the $141 K cost by stakeholders. The proposed efforts on primary
16

productivity to develop approaches to derive algae production estimates from dissolved oxygen

measurements present opportunities for more efficient assessments of aquatic biology metrics.

The new effort on EPT discussed above follows on scientist and stakeholder discussions of

general hypotheses. From the five presented hypotheses, the selected hypothesis

recommended for testing is the impacts of hydro peaking on egg mortality. As noted the flow

experiment portion of the research (34 weekend days of low steady flow from May to August) is

not required to develop preliminary evaluations of the hypothesis. With the emphasis that was

placed on the need to evaluate effects of low flows on biotic communities in the 1996 EIS it is

disheartening to have had the 2000 and 2011 low flow experiments and not have had effective

monitoring in place to evaluate aquatic insects. Project elements 5.11‐5.17 propose evaluations

of conditions in other riverine systems, literature reviews, citizen science assessments, and

laboratory experiments to develop initial evaluations of the hypothesis. This engagement of

publics in the research effort has been demonstrated effective in previous program efforts and

adds important extensions to the AM collaborative process. Clearly a need exists to evaluate

elements that could contribute to absence of EPT in the system and flow variance seems a

reasonable hypothesis to test. Laboratory testing of water temperature effects also seems

reasonable to evaluate even if a selective withdrawal device is not in current management

planning. A management action such as translocation might have merit as well, but as noted

would be difficult to assess in this system.  

Overall, Project 5 encompasses an elegant set of observational, comparative, and experimental

studies on insect ecology and algal productivity.  Presenting management implications after

scientific rationale was very persuasive, and the citizen science dimension is praiseworthy.  

However, much hinges on the validity of H5, and it is worrisome that the proposing team offers

very little evidence in support of that hypothesis.  Simply put, given that conditions below GC

dam are lousy for most aquatic inverts (cold water year‐round, low particulate organic matter

from upstream, no substantial riparian organic inputs, hydro‐peaking creating daily scouring and

monthly hydrological instability, deep/wide channel that may lack microhabitats with algae and

detritus accumulations), why would anything except small insects with rapid life cycles based on

filter‐feeding or collecting ever use such habitats?  And given the extreme flow variation from

hydro‐peaking, it is perhaps not surprising that chiros and simulids (both of which are often

pretty sedentary) are forced to drift, yet drift in low numbers due to the combination of low

productivity (cold, no food) and behavioral tendencies against drift.  By extension, it seems

pretty unsurprising that EPT taxa would not do well below GC dam.  It is quite interesting that

they seem to do better in other tail‐water areas, but the proposal does little to show that

shoreline desiccation from water level fluctuations is likely to be the major cause of low EPT.  

The practical dimensions (readily manipulated without hitting hydropower or other interests

very hard, weekly cycle over warm season, etc.) are great, but additional pilot data, direct

observations, comparisons to hydro‐peaking regime at other sites, etc should be offered in

support of a costly proposal.

Another limitation of the approach is that it focuses on singular mechanisms that could explain

the lack of EPT species below GC dam.  Never did stressor synergies come up, despite the fact

that GC dam clearly imposes three unnatural conditions: cold water, low turbidity, and large

numbers of visually‐oriented insectivorous fishes (trout).  Is it really more likely that a single
17

stressor has extirpated sensitive insects than a synergistic combination of stressors (scour, low

food resources, high predation, cold, and maybe also too few wetted oviposition sites)?  Indeed,

it was surprising that habitat limitation for larval insects was hardly mentioned.  Many benthic

insects require solid structure with interstitial spaces to thrive (sand and silt have more limited

faunas), so it would be helpful to hear more about substrate patterns from the tailrace

downward.  Perhaps these concerns can be addressed by the proposing team by providing some

details from the data that they already have in hand (e.g. dealing with temperature, substrate,

and hydro‐peaking amplitude in the comparisons indicated in Fig. 1), along with providing some

additional details on drift netting to demonstrate that EPT are not just being missed by the nets.

Life history issues received less discussion that expected; midges and blackflies are small and

develop quickly, and are talented filter feeders and collectors rather than scrapers (like many

EPT taxa).  So it seems there could be an important role for trophic ecology, as well as general

habitat flexibility that is well known for small insects like midges and blackflies that are short‐

lived (whereas most EPT are likely to be uni‐ or bivoltine in rivers that are cold year‐round) and

often found in low quality streams.  The oviposition site information presented in table also

suggests that these flies may be more flexible than most EPT taxa in that regard.

Finally, despite the elegance of the proposed experimental manipulation of dam discharge

(which is a great idea), it was difficult to assess whether May‐August is a long enough window to

see life‐cycle completion (the basis for the multigenerational amplification argument offered in

opposition to a favoring a longer low‐fluctuation period) leading to a population‐level response.  

Given the unnaturally cold temperatures below GC dam, the expected growth rates may be too

low to allow much response.  This could be calculated easily from existing knowledge of midge

secondary production, generation times, and temperature dependent growth.  Such an

argument would strengthen the case for the potential for this novel manipulation to

unequivocally resolve whether oviposition site limitation is the core problem.

Project 6:  This project presents continued main‐stem monitoring of HBC populations, RBT, and

other native and non‐native fishes represents maintenance of long term assessments of a

resources considered critical to the AMP in understanding native and non‐native fish dynamics

in the system .It is unclear how monitoring is a conservation measure, but rather should be

justified by reference to ESA or other administrative guidance. An extensive sampling effort has

derived insights about distribution and abundance of humpback chub. Much the same is true of

rainbow trout. Much less is known about many other non‐native fishes and, more importantly,

their interactions with native fishes. The SAs in their review of the 2013/14 Plan supported

improved methodologies and assessments, many of which are continued in the 2015‐17 Plan.

An important factor in effective continued AMP science and management activities on both

native and non‐native fishes is the collaboration of GCMRC with federal and state agencies and

tribal resource specialists, which is very evident in these projects. Regarding project element 6.8

on the Lees Ferry Creel Survey, we would encourage funding of this survey in 2015 if the

recreational angler survey is to be performed that year, unless the recreational angler survey

will collect that data. It would be extremely valuable to have creel census data in the same year

as the angler survey so that an objective measure of catch per unit effort could be related to

angler satisfaction and values. Another concern is whether $25,000 is sufficient for the creel

survey. Seems unlikely. Also why is USGS charging burden on Cooperators non‐USGS dollars?

This seems counter productive to get cooperators to provide funding for these programs.
18

Overall this project is developing well in its major obligations and offering creative approaches

for additional effectiveness.  We suggest that the information from these assessments be

integrated with other studies to help develop an understanding of multivariate factors that

influence HBC .  

A major shortcoming of the proposal document was the lack of concrete evidence from the

abundance of past work provided to justify the approaches proposed for FY2015‐2017.  For

instance, otolith chemistry is proposed without any clear statement of the scale and species for

which it has been proven in this system (despite two citations that appear to provide exactly

what would be needed).  Oddly, otolith chemistry was not even mentioned in regard to brown

trout tracking.  Instead, a rather speculative analysis of color phenotypes is proposed, with little

apparent evidence that existing observations suggest differences within the LCE.  With regard to

the SWEF effort and other monitoring, the background section makes passing reference to

upstream movement from Lake Mead by non‐native species, and increases in abundance of

chubs, yet substantiating details of these patterns are not offered.  This gives the reader the

sense that monitoring is being conducted but rigorous analysis of the results is lacking.  That

sense, which hopefully is not accurate, raises questions about the value of monitoring even

though the relevance is clear.

The PIT tracking at aggregations and extension of that approach to guides is a great idea, but it

would be worthwhile to specify which parts of the river are assessed regularly by PIT reading

and which are not.  It is clear that the fishery biologists have an intuition for important areas

than might be overlooked, but it is less clear whether that is based on a systematic assessment

that could turn up additional target sites for the work.  Will these data, and the new CPUE data

(p217), be comparable enough to older datasets to rigorously test whether there are more

chubs today than before, and how much they move?

With this and the other fish‐tracking projects, it might be worth considering citizen science

reporting based on distinct physical marks that anglers could recognize easily if they hook a

chub while trout‐fishing.  For instance, a small V‐notch in the dorsal fin crossing several soft rays

heals rapidly yet leaves a long‐term mark that is hard to miss, and could be applied only to

translocated fish.  That would facilitate angler reporting of translocated fish, since they will not

have PIT‐readers.  The survey of exotics extending all the way to Lake Mead during spring is a

worthwhile addition, since many of the invasive centrarchids and percids are quite mobile in the

spring as they look for spawning habitat.

Project elements 7.1‐7.5:  These projects represent a very focused and complex assessment of

adult and juvenile HBC population variance in the LCR and its confluence with the Colorado

River. The multiple projects developed over time are attempting to both evaluate and confirm

factors relating to habitat, competition, predation, etc. that contribute to population variance in

HBC juvenile and adult fish. This is recognized as a critical element of the AMP. Results from this

effort over the past three years have been extensive with abilities for modeling success greatly

enhanced as referenced in the recent LTEMP efforts. Publication of new modeling approaches

and their capabilities in contrast to existing and past modeling efforts will be important to

maintaining confidence in all modeling efforts in the AMP. Continued work on the Asian
19

Tapeworm potential impacts to juvenile fish is important. The CO2 issue and other water quality

dimensions in the LCR could become more extreme over the next two decades if projected dry

warming trends persist. The studies to evaluate the effects of CO2 in LCR water, the role of

water temperature on the extent of Asian fish tapeworm effects on juvenile humpback chub,

and the potential for Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis as an evaluation of condition factors are

laboratory studies designed to answer questions about physiological ecology of fish and may or

may not pay a role in growth rates and population dynamics. The recent advances in modeling

are associated somewhat with focused information needs of the LTEMP/EIS process with limited

exchange with the AMP processes. Proposed capabilities of the model certainly seem to warrant

proposed expenditures at the levels proposed. The approach creates a holistic picture of

variability in humpback chub population dynamics and movements between the LCR and the

main‐stem of the Colorado River. As a result of both the laboratory studies and field monitoring,

the work addresses interactions of young‐of‐the‐year chubs and rainbow trout. However, it

would be helpful to see some graphics of past results to demonstrate the inspirations for the

next round of work proposed at $1.6M/yr.  For instance, illustrating the documented variability

in juvenile outmigration rates, fall survival rates in the main‐stem, and shifts in population size

structure, etc. would help connect the new work to intriguing patterns in the existing data.

In light of the patterns indicated in the opening of the Scientific Background (p240), structural

equation modeling would be an ideal way to fit these data if the path diagram can be kept

simple (which is necessary given the low number of years in the dataset).  Jim Grace at USGS in

Louisiana might be willing to help with such an analysis.

The advances in modeling are promising, but what are the quantitative consequences of the

uncertainties in juvenile production and outmigration?  Offering the reader something more

concrete would help strengthen the case for further data collection and model development.  

For instance it was striking that temperature was rarely mentioned as a constraint on chub

performance (only in 7.5 on p248), yet it would appear easy to look at water temperature

records longitudinally and across years in LCR to test effects on chubs.  Since water temperature

is invoked as a key difference between the main‐stem and LCR, digging into the LCR

temperature data would be useful.  Similarly, could inter‐annual variation in water temperature

be an important influence on tapeworm prevalence and impact on chubs?  The potential effect

of warming in the main‐stem is noted, so presumably that could apply to LCR too.   

The idea of spawning gravel limitation in LCR is interesting (p248), and worrisome in light of

projected lower discharge in the future.  Is there potential to use pumps to power‐wash existing

gravel beds, then use automated cameras to document whether chub preferentially use washed

sites for spawning?  The CO2 issue is also a nice element, but the background statement and

approach appear to differ in indicating substrate vs respiration as the pathway of impact.  Which

is the case?  Are there any field observations that suggest chub performance is compromised by

high CO2 (e.g. during recovery after electrofishing)?

Finally, the proposal repeatedly mentions triggers for non‐native species control, but never

states the link between data collected and such triggers.  What are the barriers to using new

data to pull such triggers, and how will the proposed extension of basic monitoring help to
20

overcome those limitations?  In other words, how bad would things need to get, and will the

2015‐17 effort be certain of detection such a change?

Project 8: This project emphasizes AM processes related to implementing management actions,

monitoring and revised actions to accelerate the learning process. These non‐native fish control

and native fish translocation management activities appear to be proving effective and should

be duplicated in other science areas as possible. Proposals for expanded efforts on invasive

species in the entire LCR watershed are critical. Invasive species transfer down the system would

be expected to increase in importance in the future, especially if changes in climate and more

intense weather events occur. Also recommended is citizen participation in evaluating LCR

water quality changes related to land use practices. Extensive development is occurring in the

upper drainages with increased expectations of pollution related to municipal water treatment,

rural single‐family housing, and small rural industry. The SAs proposed the expansion of

collaborative adaptive management activities in the 2013‐14 Plan as central to managers’

success in understanding risks related to water quality in the upper LCR watersheds. The PEP

scheduled for 2016 is most important and should incorporate questions related to system wide

risks to water quality in the upper LCR watersheds.  

While there is no question the non‐native removal is a key tool, the proposal should make it

more clear how many trout can be removed a year, and what kind of impact that would have on

their overall abundance.  Of the fish removed in the past, what proportion are big enough to eat

small chubs?  There is mention of relationships between removal needs and water temperature;

what have the years of data since Coggins 2011 taught us about the strength of that

relationship?  It would be helpful to know whether chub (positive effect) or rainbow trout

(negative effect) are more temperature sensitive, since that helps to frame how the future

balance between trout fisheries and chub conservation can be struck under climate change.  Is

there potential to encourage recreational anglers to fish the Bright Angel area for brown trout,

with a mandatory culling rule?  That could potentially yield much higher removal rates, imposed

year‐round at low/no cost, as well as engaging citizens in the control effort.

There is also a need to be more clear about the success of past translocations.  Does PIT

monitoring indicate survival of all/most fish translocated since 2008?  In terms of genetic

assessments of chub aggregations, microsats may no longer be the best method; SNIPS or

extensive sequencing is now within reach to gain very high resolution.  These methods can now

be outsourced at low cost, allowing investigators to focus on interpreting the data.  If population

sizes are small enough above Chute falls, detailed parentage analysis may even be possible for

translocated and naturally‐spawned fish.

Project 9:  This project incorporates the ongoing monitoring efforts to evaluate status and

trends of rainbow trout resources. Project 9 is aimed at filling a large and critical knowledge gap,

which has significant implications for humpback chub and recreational angling. The hypotheses

proposed on p. 281 seem reasonable and important to test. Overall the individual proposed

projects within Project 9 seem to have some capability to address the key issues and hypotheses

sufficient to warrant the amount of budgetary funds involved. It also proposes multiple new

studies to evaluate and define key drivers that can impart change in RBT population size,

movement, survival, reproduction, size, and condition. All of these factors are hypothesized to
21

have some effect on individuals and populations, and previous evaluations of varied scope have

occurred in the program. Some assessments are extensions or add on analysis to evaluations

approved in the 2013‐14 Plan. To reiterate the point made in Project 6 we believe that

discontinuing creel surveys may be ill advised in the short run. Presumably while the new mark‐

recapture methods for estimating trout populations are being developed the creel census will

continue so that a relationship between the two can be established that will be useful for back‐

casting trout populations using the new method in order to have a consistent time series. Sport

fishing for RBT in the Glen Canyon NRA is an important social benefit of the tail‐water from GCD

and brings with it many socio‐economic issues. RBT growth rates have declined and abundances

have become highly variable. Although downstream migrations and reproduction by migrants

are still not well understood there should be continued effort to expand learning regarding

relationships of Glen Canyon and Marble Canyon populations. Continued efforts are also

recommended in providing better definition to HBC/RBT predation relationships. The capacity of

this species to expand its habitat quickly on potential warming water should receive increased

attention. Management of operations can affect this species and attention to water level

management, experimental flows, and related food‐base efforts need to continue. Although this

premier sports fishery is a critical resource to maintain, it also could be a significant threat to

HBC. Given that warmer water is probable for this river over the next two decades yet no

management action is proposed regarding a selective withdrawal device, HBC at the LCR could

receive threats from RBT and other predators in the river. It would be important for managers

to understand how quickly RBT populations could expand in warmer water and their predation

expectations.  

Most of the specific project elements build on earlier work, and the proposal would be

strengthened considerably by drawing more directly on evidence from previous data collection.  

For example, in element 9.4, what has been learned from all the past drift netting and stomach

content analyses?  If there is not strong evidence of selectivity, then the morphometric

dimension of this study might be difficult to interpret.

In addition, is there a way to engage anglers as citizen scientists in the effort to understand trout

movement patterns?  Assuming that angler efforts range more freely in space and time than

scientists can, then creating a physical mark (adipose clip or v‐cut in dorsal) on trout caught in

one place (e.g. tailrace of GC dam) could enable a small army  to contribute to monitoring trout

movement.  Alternatively, can otolith chemistry approaches be used in the trout studies?

The lipid approach in element 9.3 could be powerful, but lipid storage probably is not the

primary shift in resource allocation with trout size.  Rather, the primary shift would likely be

toward gametes rather than somatic growth (including lipids).  Thus, the prediction of

differential allometry of lipids in small v large trout may not be valid as proposed.  The lab

studies of turbidity effects in element 9.6 will be very useful, but under field conditions can

differences in detection distance overcome density‐ dependent encounter rates and size‐

dependent detection rates?  The literature values could provide a rough answer to that question

prior to doing the work of lab manipulations.  Similarly, for comparing different tailwaters, can

all the other factors which differ be controlled for to allow strong inferences about the effects of

temperature or other factors?

  
22

Project 10: The project focuses on Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater fishery. This

project nicely integrates information from other projects (2, 3, 9) together to address the issue

of where does the trout tailwater fishery end. The project will evaluate select shoreline sites at

flows below 8000 cfs in Glen and Marble Canyon to provide to ecologists evaluating food base

definitive information of channel geometry and bed grain size. The project has been discussed

by GCMRC at two TWG meetings and results from stakeholder requests for assessments.

Introduction of rainbow trout in this system has been a huge success, which that now is

sometimes expressed as a curse of riches. Biotic and socioeconomic issues surround

management of the RBT. The project proposes a novel and potentially important approach to

building a bridge between the detailed studies of river sediment particles and those that change

habitats and productivity in support of desirable ecological conditions. Restated, this means that

in developing the adaptive management approach at the GCe scale, there is need for more than

sole attention to building beaches for campers. Before the dam, there was a very large annual

flood. Now there are the realities of diurnal and seasonal flow fluctuations plus those of the

weather, and the HFE’s that have shoreline effects analogous to sending a tornado down the

canyon. So how can things change in way that benefit food web interactions? In other words,

what ecological benefits would develop if there were little or no HFEs for a significant period of

time? This echoes the voice of conservationists in support of stable flow conditions and that

recognizes climate change as an ominous reality. The scientists have the capacity to estimate

hypo‐symentric flow inundation effects. Unfortunately, I wonder if they have changed things

with many HFE’s in ways that do not provide a baseline condition. In ecosystem studies, these

are known as reference or control systems that develop during time of the Holocene. It may

take some time to build a reference condition that creates the habitat required to enhance like

life histories of the invertebrates, etc. If they succeed, fishes will eventually find the prey

resources. If gravel conditions develop to the point where fishes will spawn successfully, then

monitoring efforts might provide evidence of success. The comparative study proposed by

Project 9, and perhaps the drift study offered by Project 5, could offer some guidance in

planning derived from tail‐water sites where a regular pattern of seasonal or daily fluctuations

has a history different from that of the GCe events and HFE effects. The SAs strongly endorse

the potential learning from this unique project. If the project scientists implement strong

collaboration in data gathering stages and design with Project 5, 9, 11 and especially 12

scientists, it would offer the type of opportunities in science and management integration that

can advance science and learning at a much more rapid rate. Mother Nature has a time clock

that is modified on an evolutionary scale with internal sensitivity to ecological interactions.

That’s how the GCe operated before the Anthropocene before when Glen Canyon Dam was

constructed and the march of invasive species began.  

Project 11:  This is a continuation of the new vegetation monitoring and assessment programs

supported by the SAs with proposed revisions in the 2013‐14 Plan. River corridor vegetation

dynamics associated with dam operations can affect physical, biotic, and cultural resources of

concern to the AMP. The project uses the generally equivalent background evidence argued

about Mother Natures’ clock cited in Project 10.  Stop the horrendous floods, remove the

sediment, make the water cold and clear, and add in the invasion of tamarisk and its leaf beetle

plus others that have come on regulated waters with human intervention at all watershed

scales. The place was different then and it took millennia to set that clock. And, humans are  

constantly intervening in its current state in all the physical, biological, and social resources.

That is where  Mother Nature cast upon the system a more predictable slow changing set of
23

changes, humans invoke less predictable and much more rapid changes that the system must

adjust to. Yet, it is the system we must understand if we plan to manage it while it continues to

change toward some new equilibrium. An equilibrium that humans through our own actions

keep in at least a moderate a state of flux. Several previously abundant native fish species are

now gone. That’s an indicative reality. While restoration to some state yet to be fully defined is

applauded, it’s difficult to imagine or forecast how successful those efforts can be. This is not to

discourage the efforts, but the relative successes may offer some guidance to managing rates of

change for the creatures and invasive species now known in the aquatic habitats. The

experience with terrestrial life forms is an ongoing result of efforts by this group. In many places

some but not all of the invaders become established, flourish to levels of strong negative effects

on natives, then decline to lower and somewhat stable and lower levels as diseases, parasites,

and consumers increase their effects. Battling the invaders is sometimes successful and

sometimes not, while the invader persists at lesser levels. Many, many cases like that are known

from the literature. The high priority research category shows direct attention to the interaction

between hydrology, vegetation, and sediment dynamics. This should be highly relevant to the

sedimentologists and the prospects for collaboration with Projects 9 and 10. The SAs support

this effort as it has great potential for providing guidance in integrative science and

management actions.  

Project 12: This project evaluates dam effects on distribution of culturally important plants. This

is an important step in science toward policy issues related to tribal traditions and culture, i.e.

plants deemed important to Tribes for reasons related to religion, traditions, and culture. There

does not seem to be a plant scientist on this team as one of the Investigators. That would seem

be important given the basic science questions being asked. However, this project seems to

reflect the interest of tribal members in understanding dam management impacts to plant

resources of specific importance to tribal members. We are not convinced this project is

specified effectively and there are several problems with this project that need to be addressed.

First, one of the leading scientists is also working intensively on Project 4 and it difficult to see

how effectively she will be able to do both especially since both projects seem to have critical

design problems.   Second, the project is severely under budgeted in terms of both time and

funding.  For example, in one day, the list of plants that are of significance to tribes will be

identified.  Even given the use of prior research this is impossible to do thoroughly in one day

(and will condition everything that follows in terms of data collection and management

recommendations). Third, there is little reference to the anthropological literature on TEK that

could be used to help guide the research. Fourth, although the methods proposed include a mix

of qualitative and semi‐quantitative approaches it would seem possible for project members to

collaborate closely with the collection of quantitative data to be collected in the vegetation

assessment program (Project 11). This would further the goal of incorporating more TEK in all of

the scientific projects, but would also provide explicit data sharing and discussion of plant

community and individual plant distribution changes.  The use of citizen scientists in

documenting plants and their distribution, as used in Projects 3 and 5, for example, would be

exemplary. There is a lost opportunity in this project to use multiple sources of data for analysis

for what is an extremely important management issues.  Cutting this project completely is

unacceptable, however, because it is the only one that explicitly includes tribes in the research,

and is one of only two that explicitly addresses cultural resources. However, concern exists that
24

appropriate science methodology are absent from both project 4 and 12 which are led by the

same specialist.  

    

We make several specific recommendations with respect to this plan to make it more doable as

well as to ensure future duplication of effort.  First, the project should take into account both

plants and animals.  Second, because the project is undoable at the level of funding requested

($35K), these funds should be used instead to fund the first phase of the project— a pilot project

to convene a series of meetings to come up with the list of plant and animal resources identified

as important to the tribes. This should also include discussion and planning for the

implementation of the documentation phase of the plants and animals and their historic and

contemporary distributions. That planning should include ways of taking incorporating citizen

science and tribal members. In addition, that proposal should include ways of using existing and

current data sources from other projects currently being conducted. Finally, this project will

seemingly have significant difficulty establishing effect relationships, i.e. causation.  In its rewrite

perhaps a descriptive analysis should be considered instead.   

Project 13:  This project presents proposed socio‐economic research programs provided

through the leadership of GCMRCs newly placed economist. The proposed studies for 2015 for

this project emanated in the SEAHG proposed and approved recommendations to the AMWG in

2011/12. Project 13.1, originally recommended by the SEAHG for 2012/13, was proposed for

initiation by GCMRC in 2014 with carryover socio‐economic funds from 2013‐14 ($241K). The

socio‐economic research ties to GCDAMP goals (page 401), Strategic Science Questions (page

404‐405), Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMIN page 405) and two Research Information

Needs (RIN, page 405). This assessment of expenditures on recreational fishing and boating in

the CRe will be accomplished from surveys originally proposed by NPS. Inclusion of several

regional economic specialists in the analysis will assist the project. Project 13.3 represents a

proposed SEAHG project for initiation in 2012/13 on tribal resource values in the CRe. It was

recommended to the TWG by the SEAHG in 2013 as an originally approved program by the

AMWG that is currently not being planned by any agency or group of the AMP. The approaches

proposed by GCMRC are similar to general methods originally proposed by SEAHG. Use of focus

groups for initial assessments and the Choice Experimental Method are recommended

approaches for these types of assessments. Project 13.3 is a project proposed and approved in

the SEAHG recommendations to assist in improved decision analysis by the TWG and AMWG.  In

all of these projects the approaches originally recommended by the SEAHG to the TWG are

generally being proposed.   

   

o Project 13.1. The trout fishing study is an achievable beginning and is targeted at a

natural resource (trout) that has become more of a priority over the last few years. The

whitewater boating study in GCNP provides a critical update to a very old economic

study that past research suggests is sensitive to flow regimes. P. 403. We  think the two

recreation hypotheses put forward are foundational hypotheses that are critical to test.

However, we would suggest it might be worth considering an additional hypothesis: that

the value of angling Glen Canyon and whitewater boating in Grand Canyon NP will have

increased over time due to changes in “improved” dam operations over the last two

decades. Of course a one‐year survey may have difficulty teasing this out from other

events, but we think it would be worth at least considering. The recreation angling and
25

whitewater boating recreation economic studies used widely accepted methods and

largely replicate earlier studies so as to provide comparable data so there should be a

very high likelihood of success. The one concern is that the budget for Project Element

13.1, pages 413‐414. We do not see funds for the actual printing and mailing of the

surveys in this budget. Is AFGD or NPS picking up this cost?  

The true merits of the recreation values assessment are revealed by an unfortunate

history of very limited research and advisory efforts by socio‐economists over the past

three decades. In several past SA reviews concerns have been expressed regarding this

program shortfall.  In reality only flow event related hydropower financial impact

assessments by Western Area Power have afforded any glimpse of this programs

impacts on resource economic values. The economic surveys that will be used to

determine regional expenditures, trip quality for anglers and tourists, direct recreational

use values etc. are important to decision making on the Lees Ferry sport fishery.

Relating these values to differing operations of GCD will also be valuable.  What will be

important is to differentiate short and long term operation effects on socioeconomic

factors. General approaches proposed are common practice in economic assessments

and related outcomes are needed for this program.  Costs for the assessments appear

reasonable given the diverse expertise of specialists proposed.  

The SAs strongly agree that a formal program to assist the AMP in development and use

of decision methods is needed.  This has been proposed in several SA reviews and the

subject of a brief white paper by the SAs on the subject, “Evaluating Decision Support

Methods for the GCDAMP”. As an outcome of this effort two attributes of preferred DSS

by TWG were determined to be user friendly more simplistic models that are easily

understood and models that can be readily used by a group in real time, i.e. meetings

and workshops. There is an extensive base of literature to support this area, several of

which are noted in the above mentioned SA report.   It was a recommended area of

pursuit proposed by the SEAHG and endorsed by the AMWG. GCMRC in discussions with

the SEAHG/TWG has proposed this as a collaborative effort. The SAs encourage that

approach as a collaborative effort with the TWG and SEAHG. The goal of the Decision

Support System to integrate the physical and biological sciences with economics and

address uncertainty using a dynamic model is an important one. (p. 402) However,

Project Element team for 13.3 would benefit from seeing the ongoing work of Sandia

Labs who are developing a much more general model of the Glen Canyon‐Grand Canyon

hydropower‐natural resource system.  It is proposed that this effort would benefit from

discussions with Dr. Tom Lowry, systems analyst with Sandia Labs. . Framing (pages 408‐

410) of the DSS as a cost‐effectiveness analysis of humpback chub recovery is a good

choice that will increase its acceptability among AMWG and TWG. The reliance on cost‐

effectiveness in analyzing options for endangered species recovery have been used

successfully in the past as well (e.g., spotted owl recovery).  

Development of approaches for assessments of Tribal values is important. Although

recommended by the SEAHG/ TWG and approved by AMWG, the activity has not been

initiated by any entity of the AMP.  As such this proposal is encouraged by the SAs.  

However, how it is accomplished, i.e. a necessity for full engagement of the Tribes in all

project elements, is most critical.  The manner in which the Tribes hold values must be
26

first determined through the focus groups proposed.  Some resource values expressed

by the Tribes may be wholly spiritual, making pursuit of economic values incongruent

with Tribal desires.  We suggest GCMRC evaluate the work by Failing and others on First

Peoples of Canada for more insight into this issue (Failing et. al. 2007).  

Project 14:  This project overviews administrative costs for the Center, which generally tracks

from costs in the 2013‐14 programs supported by the SAs. An area of administration that has

received some support in the past but appears to receive less support in this plan is the

continued need for adaptive management assessments and planning.  The EIS/LTEMP will be

complete in the 2015 period and will have established significant new policy direction for the

AMP.  The AMP of necessity must develop new strategic and operational direction to respond

effectively.  All parties have struggled in this review in trying to sort out what of the total

program is long term monitoring efforts that should not be changed in annual reviews,

determining which science efforts need to be addressed with PEP assessments, and what

alternative programs are best to pursue.  We agree that trying to accomplish this without EIS

policy guidance would be ineffective. On the other hand when the EIS is complete this will

represent a significant administrative need. This is eluded to in several places but we do not see

the needed budget emphasis on the effort in 2015 or 2016.  

SCIENCE ADVISOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Without question this plan is the most comprehensive and well developed plan ever produced by the

GCMRC, including presentation of science linkages to goals,  response  to Asst. Sec. direction, and

stakeholder guidance in specified information needs and critical questions, as well as science review

panel concerns.  Over the years the stakeholders and managers have asked for increased inquiry based

on challenges they face.  The wealth of newly created knowledge is almost to the point of overwhelming

stakeholders as to how best they can apply this knowledge.  This program is about implementing

management actions (dam operations, non‐native fish control, habitat restoration, translocation of

native fish, etc.), and following with iterations of science efforts (monitoring, research) to learn if

outcomes can help us reach goals related to desired future conditions.  Many iterations are necessary,

some lasting 5‐10 years, to accomplish desired knowledge and management outcomes. The

management and science needs in this AM direction are very challenging with many surprises, and no

absolute final independent answer for one resource or even several interacting resources will exist.

Instead they are time‐space‐ environment‐bound with all factors in constant flux.  

The proposed research and monitoring plans capture sufficient complexity of the CRe  to be meaningful,

and inordinately complex, demonstrating  great progress toward integration of understanding across

methods and disciplines.  This is precisely what is needed to address the GDAMP needs.  No plan that

addresses this level of physical, biological and social science complexity can be perfect, and both the SAs

and the stakeholders are in this process recommending improvements they feel might help the research

center on development of future plans.

Many recommendations are mentioned throughout the review report. However, some points deserve

second mention here and additional elaboration.  
27

 The complexity, need for and quality of the information in this report is deserving of an executive

summary that duplicates in summary form the primary report elements.  Although a challenge, it

should not exceed 25 pages, with significant dependence on figures and graphs.   

 The introduction to the report should be modified, so that it provides a useful guide to the reader.  

The report is so massive that it needs to have the guide so that it can be easily followed.  In chapter

2 we suggest that the authors present a summary of the overall budget either in the introduction or

as a new chapter. This should be upfront in the report and consist of only one page. The detailed

budget appendix should be retained.  It would also be useful to present a short discussion about the

collaborative budgeting process, and how decisions were made about allocations among projects,

and costs within a program.  

 The science advisors feel that significant improvements have occurred in interdisciplinary

cooperation and integration of the monitoring and science across programs.  Project 10 exemplifies

this shift.  However, we also note areas where it might be improved.   Even where that collaborative

process was not mentioned it is intuitive from the list of scientists involved in each project.  We

support this trend and encourage continuation in the future.  

 The SAs feel that this  plan although large needs to incorporate additional elements.   Missing is an

agreed to longer term management and science strategy, agreements on critical management

actions and stakeholder AM actions as well as agreements on critical monitoring activities. The SAs

propose consideration that in 2016 this plan be revised to incorporate agreements on all of these

critical elements.  In this manner the GCDAMP will have one major working plan that incorporates

strategic and operational management/science/monitoring programs of all active entities. The SAs

feel that this could be accomplished with one or two additional chapters to the existing plan.  

 The SAs feel that the AM paradigm as applied in the AMP is working well.  However, this belief does

not therefore mean adaptive management in the GCDAMP does not need improvements.  The

GCDAMP has many accomplishments which far outweigh its inabilities to gain solutions.  It has

integrated science and management in ways that address key resource uncertainties and advances

understanding about resource dynamics and interactions.  However, this program has applied the

AM paradigm for 18 years and AM processes should be reviewed and evaluated for change.  This

assessment of “double‐loop” learning in AM programs , i.e. what do we now understand about the

shortcomings  of AM in this venue that should be modified, is critical to continued use of the

management process.  

 The plan does not describe well system level uncertainties nor how the management actions will

address these uncertainties in a concerted and planned effort.  These uncertainties fall into

categories such as impacts of climate change and re‐connecting to river system issues and

opportunities upstream and downstream of the CRe in many biophysical and socioeconomic

processes.  Rather, the continuing emphasis is on monitoring and assessing actions that are in a

constrained ecosystem definition largely derivative of political and legal mandates within that

system.    Perhaps the AMP is fully aware of this need and is developing both policy and strategic

direction apart from this document. Some of this need is surely included in the EIS/LTEMP that is

being developed external to the GCDAMP process.  Some reference is made to the potential need

for science and management revision to this plan once the EIS is completed. That being the case

there should be both recognition of this need and budget placeholders to perform the needed work

since it is known to be imminent. One potential approach to mitigating this expected need is

collaboration with basin wide entities in evaluating threats and opportunities for the basin and
28

developing a system wide model that can adequately address policy, management and science

planning needs.    

 It  is not clear that optional  management treatments were considered in each of the projects.  Due

to the applied nature of GCMRC research, the SAs agree that it would benefit the proposal authors

to create a project proposal template that includes separate sections for scientific rational and

management implications under each element, much like that presented in the present proposal for

Project 5. Making those linkages explicit would help to promote creative thinking about

implementation as research projects are being designed.  When such context was presented, in

most cases only one management dilemma or scientific approach was presented for resolution.  

Obviously several options can exist which give more/or less benefit in learning and management

resolution associated with greater or lesser costs. Overall, the entire AM cycle will move faster  if

science‐based ‘solutions’ are always presented with their pros and cons, and alternative approaches

to the same end are discussed more openly. In the guidance provided to proposers in the next

funding cycle, we also feel there is a need to require more coverage of past results or other concrete

context for requesting funding.  There is mounting pressure for accountability, and some of the

proposed projects with the largest budgets also offer the least rationales for further work.  The SAs

are not skeptical of the value of these efforts, but rather wish to encourage the proposers to make

the most of their existing data in designing the next generation of studies.

 We would ask the AMP program and GCMRC to consider evaluating the social and organizational

learning that is part of adaptive management.  A few of the projects address this issue, such as the

traditional ecological knowledge program for plants.  But a more direct overview about modes of

learning, repositories of learning (more than web available data or GIS files), would help facilitate

the collective understanding and the adaptive management program.   In the past, projects such as

the State of the Colorado River Ecosystem (SCORE) report, knowledge assessment workshops, and

integrative conceptual modeling have been very effective at fostering and facilitating institutional

learning within the entire AMP.  It is true that GCMRC produces an excellent workshop of its annual

accomplishments and therein reflects somewhat on where they are related to uncertainties and

learning as referenced to DFCs.  Using that knowledge to specify and chart a future direction, i.e.

strategic management with stakeholders and managers as noted above is critical.  

 The overall budget in the 2013‐14 plan seemed suitable from a short term perspective, but the SAs

proposed that it might be insufficient in the longer term.  The review of the 2015‐17 budget creates

more of an alarm for the long term for several reasons.  These budgets have and are  using up

savings (carry‐overs), base support from USGS, lower cost rents to maintain facilities, etc. to

continue to respond to the very complex needs of the system as expressed by stakeholders and

managers.  Although excellent progress is being made in physical and biological sciences with

promise in social sciences, much uncertainty still exists regarding very critical biological resources in

the system. These science areas are also the most expensive to pursue. Already some critical areas

of research cannot be sustained at desired levels and other potential needed research cannot be

started or must be postponed. With the clear knowledge that administrative costs will rise

significantly, and the threat that warming water temperatures could require new research efforts

we believe the 2018‐2020 management and science cycle will be significantly under‐funded. Several

strategies seem available; increase funding from internal or external sources, define lower

requirements and reduce management and science activity, reprogram internally, and evaluate

lower cost alternatives.  The AMWG needs to consider a management review of the entire AMP

management and science program to address future budget needs as well as the AM structure and

process being used.    

 The SAs support the program administration changes recommended, including the POAHG, Science

Advisors and Lake Powell programs. A history of the GCDAMP is something that should be
29

accomplished at some point. However, we propose  future opportunities to accomplish that task

when currently limited energies and resources might be better  focused on other AMP issues.  In the

meantime extensive documentation is and will be available to the task.  Transfer of the Science

Advisor program to BOR seems reasonable.  It will be critical that the independence of the group

remains inviolate, that its tasks continue to be directed from  the full AMWG and that it

accomplishes its tasks as defined in its operating procedures. Transfer of the Lake Powell Program to

BOR seems appropriate as its future accomplishments lie more in applying its science findings

directly to management needs.  In major part BOR is currently leading these activities.  It will be

important that the Lake Powell reservoir and future implications of its management be considered

for a new program initiative to evaluate impacts to the Colorado Basin from climate change.  

Project 1:  The Lake Powell Program, especially in its new administration by the BOR offers great

potential for management application of accomplished science.  The SAs propose that if the

total time and cost of analyzing all biological samples is large, small subsamples should first be

analyzed to determine the expected value of additional learning. If it is low perhaps energies

and funding should be focused on more rapid application of physical data and analysis to

enhance existing and needing modeling efforts.  The SAs also propose that a new initiative

should be undertaken by the BOR in collaboration with GCMRC and other basin entities.  That

initiative should focus on basin system assessment and modeling of management needs to

mitigate predicted impacts of climate change in the basin.  

Project 2:  This monitoring project provides critical data and analysis to many other projects and

should be considered as an ongoing need over multiple planning periods, i.e. a core monitoring

need especially as relates to evaluating impacts of climate change on water temperature.   

Remote sensing technology continues to advance and as in the past this project should continue

to test new technology for application.  Although it is mentioned that this project collaborates

with programs in cultural resources, it is not made clear how that occurs. This should be made

more specific. It is also important that the AMWG evaluate the level of information resolution it

needs from this project as it relates directly to increasing costs.  

Project 3: The SAs see this as a critical monitoring project and should continue to provide

important data and analysis inputs to other important resource areas, including riparian and

aquatic habitats and recreation beaches. It provides the critical basis for enhancing modeling

capability to both assess sediment balance in the system and predict flow implications to

sandbar maintenance over time. Not emphasized is the potential capabilities of this project to

integrate with data recovery and assessment related to archeological sites which needs to be

included. Modeling efforts should proceed in collaboration with sandbar modeling efforts

developed in the EIS/LTEMP process.  Because of high sampling costs efforts should continue to

adopt advanced remote sensing technology.  High program costs dictate that AMWG continue

to evaluate both the amount of information needed from this program and its resolution.  

Project 4: The SAs feel this is an important project to consider even though it lacks effective

science design and the small samples represented in empirical work have not fully validated

approaches recommended.  Several sets of information should appear in a revised project to

help its full evaluation, including:  How will it assist NPS and Tribes site mitigation approaches;

improving sample size validate approaches; how will qualitative and quantitative data be

integrated, etc.  
30

Project 5:  This program has developed critically needed understanding of food base in this

system. In its ongoing efforts, management needs to know if and how the challenges of

evolutionary history can be accommodated and what expectations in this system are realistic.

Developing the bottom‐up assessments and modeling approaches are helpful in evaluation of

the top‐down constraints apparent in higher trophic levels. The proposal for sampling work in

the upper Colorado River to provide the context for ongoing assessments in the CRe would help

validate methods. The mix of laboratory and in‐stream experiments to probe basis for EPT

existence/low abundance provides the type of science alternatives important to managers in

their efforts to support broad based initiatives. Pursuing lab assessments initially to assist design

elements of river based experimentation is applauded. Establishing proofs with river based

experimentation will be difficult and longer term. The creative implementation of citizen science

in these programs should be emulated as possible in other programs.

Project #6.  The continued main‐stem monitoring of HBC populations, RB, and other native and

non‐native fishes represents maintenance of needed long term assessments of resources

considered critical to the AMP in understanding native and non‐native dynamics in the system.  

Although continued assessments of new monitoring methods and enhancements of analysis

modeling efforts are encouraged the project is most critical to advancing learning in this

program. The SAs encourage funding of  the creel survey in 2015 if the recreational angler

survey is to be performed that year, unless the recreational angler survey will collect the creel

census data as part of the recreation angler survey. It would be extremely valuable to have creel

census data in the same year as the angler survey so that an objective measure of catch per unit

effort could be related to angler satisfaction and values analysis. It will also be useful for back‐

casting trout populations to have consistent time series. Also, it is recommended to remove

USGS burden on Cooperator dollars being provided to the GCMRC program. This discourages

Cooperators from contributing to projects as it is essentially a tax on it.  

Project 7:  Elements 7.1‐7.5 represent a very focused and complex assessment of adult and

juvenile HBC population variance in the LCR and its confluence with the Colorado River. Due to

the relative importance of the endangered HBC resource in the AMP program, LCR primary

habitats for the species in this system and assumed predator interactions of RBT and juvenile

HBC this program must continue to receive primary emphasis.  Results over a short time span

have yielded significant new understanding related to habitat, competition, predation, etc.  

Most important are the added values in enhanced modeling. Because of dependence on these

modeling outcomes in several management applications it is recommended that publications in

process contrast both improvements in model design and predictability of the new model to

existing model. The studies to evaluate the effects of CO2 in LCR water and  the role of water

temperature on the  extent of Asian tapeworm effects on juvenile humpback, may or may not

play an strong  role in HBC growth rates and population dynamics. Due to potential threats to

water quality and non‐native species introduction in the upper LCR system, a feasibility

assessment of potential strategies to minimize impacts from these two factors should be

evaluated. This project offers the greatest opportunity to evaluate predator interactions of the

two species and should continue to be a significant element of this research.  

Project 8: The success in more rapid learning noted for management actions in both non‐native

fish control and translocations of HBC should be continued in other resources and especially as
31

applied as collaborative efforts of science and management groups.  Assessing most feasible

approaches for management/science collaboration in EPT restoration, LCR water quality

mitigation ,camping beach reclamation, gravel bed restoration,  native vegetation restoration,

archeological site restoration etc. could reveal different and more effective joint  activities than

are currently pursued.  

Projects 9 and 10:  These projects present the continued monitoring efforts and related

research on factors that can induce variances in populations of  this sports fishery resource and

new investigations on implications of lower flows to critical reproduction habitats, and

potentials for downriver migrations and establishment of new populations.  This program is

important to its contributions in maintaining a healthy sports fishery, but also to greater

understanding of these populations ability to transition downstream and impose greater threats

to native species in the system.  

Project 11:  This project proposed and supported by the SAs in the 2013‐14 program represents

new science in the river and offers promise to several other programs including camping

beaches, aquatic habitat, food base, etc. It affords collaborative opportunities for NPS native

plant restoration and camping beach reclamation projects.   

Project 12.  Concern exists regarding effective science design and specification of this project.

There does not seem to be a plant scientist on this team as one of the Investigators. That would

seem be important given the basic science questions being asked. If budget is a constraint,

perhaps a specialist from the NPS could join the team in a collaborative capacity. Project 12

needs to be rethought because it lacks an  effective design and  is severely underfunded.  It

should be made more comprehensive with both more anthropological approaches to TEK

included as well as integration with the data collection possibilities expressed through other

projects with a much higher budget and/or use the funds requested for a pilot project instead.  

Citizen scientists could also be involved with the research to help with current and historical

documentation. In the project rewrite  perhaps the project should be specified as a descriptive

analysis.  

Project 13:  Three important programs are presented in this project.  All are recommended by

the AMWG.  Key elements are presented for each that support information needs sought by the

AMWG.  More emphasis on an initial pilot project to evaluate multiple decision analysis

approaches with the TWG should be considered for 13.2 The socio‐economics project team

undertaking the Decisions Support Modeling (Project 13.3) should see the ongoing work of also

consider collaboration with Sandia Labs which is developing a much more general model of the

Glen Canyon‐Grand Canyon Resource System. Perhaps both efforts would be needed, but

collaboration would seem important.  Dr. Tom Lowry, a system analyst with the Sandia Lab, is

the leader on this project.  As proposed 13.3 initial use of tribal focus groups to assist in program

specification is critical.  The SAs encourage continued engagement of tribal representatives in all

stages of the project.  
M E M O R A N D U M

To: John Jordan, TWG Chair

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Chair-elect

Shane Capron, Vice TWG Chair

From: Kurt Dongoske, CRAHG Chair

Date: 14 July 2014

RE: Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group’s Recommendations to the Technical Work Group Regarding 

the 2015-2017 Triennial Work Plan and Budget for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program

At the request of the Technical Work Group, the Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG) met on 09 

July 2014 to discuss the proposed 2015-2017 Triennial Work Plan (TWP) and budget for the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program and to generate recommendations/comments back to the 

Technical Work Group. The meeting was held in a conference room at the United States Geological 

Survey’s Flagstaff Field Station. CRAHG members in attendance were Mary Barger, Reclamation; Ellen 

Brennan and Jen Dierker, Grand Canyon National Park; Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe; Loretta Jackson and 

Pete Bungart, Hualapai Tribe; Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni; Sarah Rinkevich, Tribal Liaison, DOI; Tony 

Joe, Navajo Nation (via teleconference); Rosemary Sucec, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (via 

Teleconference); Diane Austin, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona for 

the Southern Paiute Consortium (via teleconference), and Lisa Meyers, Western Area Power 

Administration (via teleconference). Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research personnel in attendance 

were Scott VanderKooi, Helen Fairley, Joel Sankey, and Daniel Sarr.

The following are the recommendations/comment of the CRAHG to the Technical Work Group:

Bureau of Reclamation’s Cultural Resources Work Plan (D.2):

1. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Monitoring and Mitigation – CRAHG wants to see the 

actual research design to understand how the proposed GCNRA’s monitoring and mitigation 

would meet Reclamation’s compliance responsibilities under the existing programmatic 

agreement and the proposed new programmatic agreement. Additionally, CRAHG is concerned 

that monitoring and mitigation approaches be consistent across the entire CRE and that GCNRA

and GRCA are part of an overarching plan. CRAHG requested from Reclamation a timeline for 

activities accomplished for the draft of the new programmatic agreement, identify when the 

new programmatic agreement will be sent to the participating Tribes for review, and provide a 

copy of Reclamation’s letter to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (AZSHPO) 

regarding the definition of the new area of potential effects (APE) and any response from the 

AZSHPO.
CRAHG Report to the TWG

Triennial Work Plan and Budget (FY2015-2017)

11 July 2014

Page 2

2. Reclamation’s Support for GCMRC’s Project 4 & Project 4: The CRAHG supports GCMRC’s project 

4, including Reclamation’s funding support, as a research effort to address the science questions 

being asked. However, project 4 does not meet Reclamation’s full §106 compliance 

responsibilities as defined in the existing programmatic agreement. Specifically, project 4 does 

not adequately address Reclamation’s monitoring responsibilities or the involvement of the 

participating Tribes in the development of a new monitoring plan. The Tribal involvement in the 

development of the monitoring plan associated with project 4 is not discussed and there are no 

provisions for funding meaningful Tribal participation in the development of the monitoring 

plan.

3. TEK Ecological Restoration Project: CRAHG supports this project and encourages a well 

coordinated effort with the Grand Canyon NPS vegetation program and personnel. The CRAHG 

also sees some potential for overlap between this project and GCMRC’s project 12 and we 

encourage the project personnel to investigate the potential for integration.

4. Tribal Synthesis: CRAHG supports this project and believes that the request for proposal (RFP) 

needs to be very specifically worded so that the project’s deliverable meets the needs of the 

adaptive management program. The CRAHG recommends a phased approach to this research 

effort with the first phase consisting of an overview of existing (national and international) 

collaborative ecosystem management programs involving Tribal and/or indigenous people. The 

overview would include identifying those programs which could be the focus of follow-up 

interviews with managers and indigenous representatives. Based on the information gathered 

during Phase I, Phase II would entail an analysis of the information and the generation of 

recommendations to the adaptive management program. CRAHG believes the phased approach 

would be less costly particularly in the first year and the findings from Phase I may determine 

that Phase II is not necessary.

5. Annual Integrated River Trip: CRAHG supports this project particularly because it fosters an 

important exchange of worldviews between Tribal representatives and representatives from the 

Department of the Interior within the appropriate contextual setting.

6. Non-native Fish Removal Consultation: The CRAHG supports continuing consultation by 

Reclamation, NPS, and GCMRC with the Tribes regarding any non-native fish removal or 

“incidental take” of natives or non-natives in any of the AMP programs. The CRAHG 

recommends that Reclamation consider amending/revising the existing non-native fish control 

Memorandum of Agreement in consultation with the Tribes because live fish removal does not 

appear to be a viable mitigative strategy now that whirling disease has been detected in Lees 

Ferry. This should be accomplished well in advance of the time when triggering criteria are 

anticipated to be met.

7. Tribal Preparation of Paperwork for DOE of Grand Canyon to the National Register: CRAHG 

supports this effort because it is viewed as a critical need of the program. Moreover, CRAHG 

recommends funding consideration for FY15 or 16 if possible.
CRAHG Report to the TWG

Triennial Work Plan and Budget (FY2015-2017)

11 July 2014

Page 3

8. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring: CRAHG supports this program.

9. Tribal Participation in GCDAMP: CRAHG supports the continuation of funding support for Tribal 

participation in the GCDAMP. CRAHG recommends that the DOI agencies investigate increasing 

the funding support for tribal participation because over the past fifteen years economic costs 

have dramatically increased by the tribal funding for participation has remained static.

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s Projects

10. Projects 6.2, 6.4, 8.1, 9.3 & 9.10: CRAHG strongly encourages Reclamation, National Park 

Service, and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center to consult with the participating 

Tribes regarding these projects or any projects that involve the intentional euthanasia of nonnative or native fish or the unintentional collateral loss of life (not just fish) associated with a 

research/monitoring project.

11. Project 12. Dam Related-Effects on the Distribution and Abundance of Selected CulturalImportant Plants in the Colorado River Ecosystem: CRAHG recommends moving forward with 

this project, but greatly expanding the role of the Tribes in identifying specific research avenues

to be pursued. This will entail multiple Tribal workshops for the purposes of having the 

participating Tribes in collaboration with GCMRC design the structure of the research effort. The 

initial workshop would be followed by compilations and summarization of the data sources by 

GCMRC as envisioned in the FY 2015-2017 TWP. A second workshop would then be convened 

with the Tribes to utilize the results of the data compilation to revise and further refine the 

research effort designed by the Tribes. This project would be a pilot project with an emphasis on 

exploring the productivity of utilizing historic imagery in Tribal monitoring programs. The CRAHG

recommends investigating the benefits of integrating this project with GCMRC’s riparian 

program (Project 11).

12. Project 13.2. Tribal Perspectives for and Values of Resources Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam: 

CRAHG expressed concern about this research effort and the potential to reduce Tribal cultural 

values to Western capitalistic terms, a value system applied to this ecosystem that is not shared 

by the Tribes. CRAHG recommends that GCMRC researchers need to have more in-depth 

conversations with the Tribes regarding this project during 2014-2015 before it is implemented.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group WebEx/CC Meeting 

August 4, 2014 

Conducting: John Jordan, TWG Chair Convened: 9 a.m. (MDT)

 Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board 

Jerry Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Mark Van Vlack, State of California 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, FWS 

VACANT, State of Wyoming

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Lucas Bair, Economist 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist 

Dave Lytle, SBSC Manager 

Ted Melis, Sediment Resources Manager 

Jack Schmidt, Center Director

Scott VanderKooi, Biology Program Manager 

Interested Persons:  

Mary Barger, Bureau of Reclamation 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Dave Garrett, M3Research 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, Tribal Liaison DOI 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative Mr. Capron. The purpose of today’s call is to discuss additional concerns 

on the FY15-17 TWP revised on August 1, 2014 (posted 8/3/14). Comments will be captured and 

forwarded to the AMWG for their budget deliberation. 

 Mr. Knowles said Reclamation received approval for expenditure of funds for Accusonic flowmeters 

on the bypass tubes at Glen Canyon Dam. 

 Dr. Garrett asked if he could participate in today’s call since the SA contract had ended. No funding 

was being sought from GCMRC so Dave was permitted to join the call. 

 Ms. James suggested an update on the Colorado River Total Value Survey be added to the AMWG 

Agenda (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/09/2014-15987/proposed-information-collection-commentrequest-colorado-river-total-value-survey). 

Budget Discussion (Attachment 1) – Dr. Schmidt gave a PPT on “Final Draft GCMRC Work Plan and 

Budget FY15/16/17.” He provided a breakdown for costs for FY13 and FY14 and presented changes to 

GCMRC’s budget since mid-July. Referring to a pie chart, he said every category includes a 16% burden 

or indirect cost rate. At this point in time, GCMRC has balanced budgets for FY 15, 16, and 17: 

Fiscal Year Total Budget GCDAMP Budget GCMRC Carryover Other/BOR 

2015 $9,548,100 $8.7 million $0.8 million 

2016 9,859,600 $9.0 million $0.1 million $0.5 million 

2017 $9,806,100 $9.3 million $0.5 million 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of August 4, 2014, WebEx/CC Meeting Page 2

   

GCMRC’s budget is broken down into the following categories by fiscal year and burden rate: 

 FY15 FY16 FY17 

Geophysical Sciences 35% 35% 38% 

Aquatic & Fish Science 42% 41% 36% 

Vegetation 6% 6% 5% 

Socioeconomics 2% 2% 3% 

Admin/Support 16% 16% 18% 

Burden Rate 15.6% 11.3% 27.4% 

He encouraged people to read the Chapter 2 introduction as it has undergone substantive revision. One 

of SA criticisms was that the program wasn’t well connected to earlier documents, especially the Core 

Monitoring Plan. The staff did a great job linking the work being proposed to the CMP of February 2011, 

and also expanded the linkages with the DFCs. The SA had also suggested cycling back in the 3-year 

budget to revisit some of the important documents and continue to evaluate the present activities of 

GCMRC in relation to the earlier documents. He didn’t want to wait on doing that so his staff re-evaluated 

those documents and placed this program in that framework. 

Using the Desired Future Conditions Report he exerted some of the main DFC criteria just to remind 

people how diverse the range of issues are in the ecosystem. One way to think of the DFCs is to think of 

them as the active channel of the Colorado River. The active channel of a river is a very standard 

conceptual term and it’s the part of the river that involves the active bare sandbars and channel beds and 

the edges of the river that are defined by the common floods. We have resources that occur above the 

active channel, resources within the active channel, and also keep in mind the concern of elevation of the 

riparian vegetation and the degree to which it continues to invade into the channel and make the active 

channel smaller. The active channel was much bigger prior to completion of Glen Canyon Dam and what 

is the response of riparian vegetation to that flood regime. They’re learning the short duration HFEs (3 

days) do not keep riparian vegetation from invading lower into the channel and the channel is shrinking. 

In chapter 2, they looked at which DFCs they think the TWP is responsive to and which ones less so or 

not at all. For instance, there is no part of this work plan that could be construed as evaluating the DFC 

to re-establish fishes extirpated from Grand Canyon. They explicitly why and don’t believe there is TWG 

consensus for the program to marshal budget and resources at this time to study that. 

He reviewed the principles in budget development and the guidelines for prioritization of projects and 

said staff were encouraged eliminate budget, particularly in aquatic and fish science monitoring. 

GCMRC, USFWS, and AGFD were subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure to look for duplicate 

efforts. All proposed monitoring took precedence over all proposed research. One thing that meant is that 

proposed monitoring in riparian vegetation, which is only tangentially mentioned in the HFE Protocol and 

NNFC EAs, took precedence over critical research to resolve some other issues of interactions that 

occur in the aquatic and fish communities. 

In developing the FY16-17 budgets: (1) GCMRC prioritized the monitoring and research activities, (2) 

Made a number of research projects 2-year projects rather than 3-year projects, (3) Delayed the start 

times of other projects, and (4) removed some projects from proposed AMP funding. Jack said he got to 

a point where he wasn’t comfortable cutting anymore projects. The AMP funding is going to require the 

principle investigators to reduce their overall budget requests in FY16 by 7% and in FY17 by 5%. They’re 

proposing to do everything that is described. GCMRC was criticized by the TWG for not revealing how 

they were going to deal with the prioritization of projects in FY16 and 17 and for not presenting a 

balanced budget for those years. They revised Appendix 2a which reflects how each project stands in 

the 3-year cycle. In Appendices, 2c, 2d, and 2e, they have the “guts” of each project (salaries, logistics, 

etc.). 

The following tables reflect changes and/or comments on the FY15-17 TWP: 

 

Project 1: Reservoir Water Quality Program 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of August 4, 2014, WebEx/CC Meeting Page 3

   

15 GCMRC is requesting $20K to fund a science review panel to evaluate past 

studies of reservoir physical limnology and ecology that have focused on Lakes 

Powell or Mead. 

16 

17 

Project 2: Stream flow, water quality, and sediment transport

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $1.34 million No significant changes. 

16 $1.35 million Funded at 95% of work to be done by David Topping. 

17 $1.46 million 

Project 3: Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics... 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $1.33 million No significant changes. 

16 $1.27 million GCMRC won’t mettle in how work is being done by different PIs. All work will be 

funded at 93% but not sure of 7% or 5% cuts, or if some projects will be cut more 

or less. Will look for cost savings but not changes in work. 

17 $1.37 million 

Project 4: Quantifying the relative importance of river-related factors that influence upland geomorphology and 

archaeological site stability 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.34 million GCMRC took all of its carryover in FY14 and has allocated it to the purchase of a 

ground-based lidar to facilitate work in FY16-17 for this project. This amount of 

money was removed from FY15 budget because they’re taking that money out of 

FY14 carryover. Work in Project 4.2 will be in the development of a monitoring 

plan in FY15. 

16 $0.57 million In Project 4.2, AMP the request in FY15 is $48K, but $174K was requested for 

purchase of equipment which was taken out of carryover money so it dropped out 

of FY15 budget. Yet, the budget is FY16 and 17 are substantial. Will also be 

receiving supplemental out of BOR cultural funds. 

17 $0.59 million 

Project 5: Food base monitoring and research 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.52 million There were small changes in the distribution in the food base project. Funding is 

not identified in Project 5.1.6. GCMRC is working with WAPA to seek funding 

($180K) to support field work that allows comparison between ecosystem 

processes in Grand Canyon and those in Red Canyon downstream from Flaming 

Gorge that isn’t part of this AMP project. 

16 $0.55 million Are proposing that projects 5.1.3, 5.1.4, and 5.1.5 be 2-year research projects 

rather than 3 years. The third year of support was dropped as the same in 5.2.3 

and 5.3.1. Everything that is in bold and italics will be subject to a 7% cut in FY16 

and a 5% cut in FY17. If it’s not in bold, it’s unfunded at this time. Items dropped in 

FY17 were efforts in synthesizing available information that could be done in 2 yrs. 

17 $0.57 million 

Project 6: Main-stem Colorado River humpback chub aggregations and fish community dynamics 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.67 million There aren’t any major changes here. We had proposed to use some of the 

NNFCC to fund some NF projects to help balance the budget. Since we’re out 

several years to trigger any management actions, they thought it would be 

worthwhile to use some of that funding to ensure they could conduct some of the 

research projects focused on native fish. 

16 $0.65 million Dropping funding in project 6.2. Everything else is subject to a 7% or 5% 

reduction. This is dropping support to sister agencies, such as 6.1 and 6.4. 

BOR committed to GCMRC in the budget cycle this time next year they would reevaluate and could portray that those projects may be continued for funding from 

the NNFC. There are five projects that GCMRC would propose to be funded (6.2, 

6.3, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.9). Currently, they are unfunded. Jack will put an * in those 

17 $0.70 million 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of August 4, 2014, WebEx/CC Meeting Page 4

   

cells in the FY16 budget and note “contingent on approval from BOR.” In the event 

that BOR doesn’t approve the $300K, GCMRC will reprioritize because the 

program needs to find a way to fund those projects. These are HIGH priority items 

but unfunded at this time, but are expected to be funded and other lower priority 

projects will drop off even though they’re not being identified now.

Project 7: Population ecology of humpback chub in and around the Little Colorado River

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $1.55 million There are small differences of less than 5% on how funds were reallocated among 

these elements. There are no changes to the elements. 

16 $1.60 million Virtually every project except project 7.6 down will continue on because they think 

the work is very important. 

17 $1.30 million Will be using NNFC (from BOR) to support projects in 15. They’re proposing a 

decrease of that fund in FY16. If in FY16 they hit the trigger and have to 

implement NNFC, then the FY16 budget will need to be revised as there will be 

about $300K of projects that can’t be funded. BOR would be willing to consider 

using NNFC funds in the event the trigger and criteria are not met. If NNFC funds 

aren’t available, then the budget will need to go through a prioritization process. 

BOR committed to GCMRC in the budget cycle this time next year they would reevaluate and could portray that those projects may be continued for funding from 

the NNFC. There are five projects that GCMRC would propose to be funded (6.2, 

6.3, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.9). Currently, they are unfunded. Jack will put an * in those 

cells in the FY16 budget and note “contingent on approval from BOR.” In the event 

that BOR doesn’t approve the $300K, GCMRC will reprioritize because the 

program needs to find a way to fund those projects. These are HIGH priority items 

but unfunded at this time, but are expected to be funded and other lower priority 

projects will drop off even though they’re not being identified now.

Project 8: Experimental actions to increase abundance and distribution of native fishes in Grand Canyon

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.19 million No significant changes. 

16 $0.21 million 

17 $0.28 million 

Project 9: Understanding factors determining recruitment, population size, growth, and movement of rainbow trout 

in Glen and Marble Canyons 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $1.01 million Scott reported there were some discussions with Bill Stewart about the monitoring 

of RBT in Lees Ferry. GCMRC’s initial proposal was to end what they thought was 

duplicative sampling. There was concern about the loss of continuity of a longterm dataset. They came to an agreement to move funding assigned to AGFD 

from a couple of projects into project 9.1 so they could continue the Lees Ferry 

RBT electrofishing surveys in through FY15 and then are planning a PEP panel on 

the fisheries program to evaluate proposed changes. 

The natal origins and juvenile chub monitoring studies that GCMRC has been 

conducting with Dr. Korman ends in FY16 (end of 5-year agreement). There are 

some funding levels in FY17 related to the end of that project and based on the 

outcome of the PEP panel in early FY16, GCMRC and its cooperators need to 

decide on how the monitoring of trout in Glen Canyon and monitoring of juvenile 

chub in Marble Canyon changes in FY17 with the sunsetting of that project. 

16 $1.02 million 

17 $0.74 million Similar to what is proposed in FY15, there are a couple of projects that are being 

proposed to fund at a reduced level. Discussions with the PIs indicated they could 

make progress at a reduced level. These would be funded at half the original 

proposed level, FY15-17. Mike Yard had proposed a morphological study under 

feeding fish and they’ve decided to postpone that indefinitely. Another change is a 

study by Kim Dibble on lipid reserves in trout is only budgeted for FY15 and then 

ends. One other change is David Ward’s laboratory studies evaluating turbidity 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of August 4, 2014, WebEx/CC Meeting Page 5

   

and its effects on rainbow trout and their ability to feed on prey items including 

juvenile HBC – only proposing that work through FY16. 

Project 10: Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater fishery end? – integrating fish and channel 

mapping data below Glen Canyon Dam 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.15 million Based on stakeholder feedback at the TWG meeting/webEx, they propose to fully 

fund this effort. 

16 $0.15 million Funded at 93% and 95% for 3 years. 

17 $0.13 million 

Project 11: Riparian vegetation studies: ground-based and landscape-scale riparian vegetation monitoring and 

plant response-guild research associated with sandbar evolution and wildlife habitat analysis 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.49 million No changes made. 

16 $0.51 million Funded at 93% and 95% for 3 years. 

Project 11.4 generated stakeholder concern (Yackulic) to look at changes in the 

active channel ecosystem related to the food base and emerging insections 

carries over into the terrestrial ecosystem. Funding is being reduced in FY15 and 

ramping up in FY16 and 17. Some stakeholders were skeptical about the value of 

this. GCMRC is trying to be responsive to other stakeholders particularly the tribes 

that keep emphasizing the need to understand the impacts to the upper elevation 

terrestrial ecosystem. 

17 $0.48 million 

Project 12: Dam-related effects on the distribution and abundance of selected culturally-important plants in the 

Colorado River ecosystem

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.05 million Based on feedback from stakeholders, particularly the tribes, there was a small 

amount of unfunded, but this project is now fully funded in FY15. 

16 $0.08 million Funded at 93%. 

17 

Project 13: Socio-economic monitoring and research 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.18 million Project 13.1. Clayton suggested the SEAHG and scientists hold an initial meeting 

to discuss the project in more detail and that any reference to SEAHG involvement 

needs to be stated in the BWP. Lucas concurred and said the BWP would be 

changed accordingly. 

Project 13.3. Leslie said in Chapter 2, top of page 64, the language just prior to 

this excerpt there is discussion about tradeoffs, which may not always be equal to 

“foregone hydropower.” She believes that is sufficient to describe what is desired 

out of the model, as well as specifically citing the DFC language, which uses 

“consistent with,” not “to meet other.” She offered: 

The analytical methods, predictive models in the decision support system, will 

provide a platform to identify the least-cost approach (i.e., foregone hydropower) 

to meet other DFCs. 

The research in TWP Project 13 is consistent with the goal and objective of the 

power DFC. and 

with the Record of Decision’s goal of not maximizing benefits but determining an 

operation at Glen Canyon Dam that limits impact to hydropower while meeting 

recovery and long-term sustainability of downstream resources. 

16 $0.20 million Tribal value assessments. This has been controversial and the subject of 

substantial angst and concern on the part of the tribes. In a world in which we’re 

short on money and a world in which there is potential opposition on the part of the 

tribes or at least questions and concerns. This was moved to the “unfunded” 

category but is being proposed for funding in FY17 hoping that 2 years of dialogue 

with the tribes can build up enough trust and build up a revised arrangement for 

how that work carries forward. 

17 $0.34 million 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of August 4, 2014, WebEx/CC Meeting Page 6

   

Project 14: Geographic information systems, services, and support 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $0.22 million No changes. 

16 $0.22 million 

17 $0.24 million 

Project 15: Administration and Support 

FY Proposed Budget Comments 

15 $1.30 million No changes. 

16 $1.33 million 

17 $1.48 million 

Jack said that essentially every project was edited and revised in July to be responsive to the comments 

they heard from TWG, the SA, and other groups. They’ve tried to take on some bigger issues in 

explaining what they’re doing in geomorphology. They developed a document to be released tomorrow 

called “Response to Reviewer Comments” (Attachment 2, with AFGD comments as it was accidentally 

omitted). 

Additional Edits for the Final TWP: 

 The project identifier “3” is a typo and shouldn’t be in the budget tables. 

 Asterisks (*) will be placed next to items that are non-AMP power revenues. For example, water 

quality that is supported with Reclamation funds and cultural resource work that is funded from 

BOR power revenues. 

SA Contract. Since the SA contract has ended, Shane asked who would be giving the SA report at the 

AMWG meeting. Reclamation won’t have the new SA contract in place until October. Glen deferred to 

Dave or Jack on how to secure funding for Dave’s participation at the meeting. Shane felt strongly it 

would be important to have a funding mechanism in place that would allow Dave to provide the SA 

Report and also explain how the TWP was modified to address their comments. 

Next Steps. GCMRC will develop an “addendum” page of edits captured at today’s meeting and at the 

AMWG meeting and incorporate into the final version of the TWP. 

Public Comments: None. 

Adjourned: 12 noon 

Respectfully submitted, 

Linda Whetton 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Region 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Draft Minutes of August 4, 2014, WebEx/CC Meeting Page 7

   

Key to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AIF – Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

ASMR – Age-Structure Mark Recapture 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group 

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure 

BE – Biological Evaluation 

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow 

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow 

BHTF – Beach/Habitat Test Flow 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO – Biological Opinion 

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation 

BWP – Budget and Work Plan 

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group 

CAP – Central Arizona Project 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan 

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan 

CPI – Consumer Price Index 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California 

CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CRE – Colorado River Ecosystem 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DOE – Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN – Federal Register Notice 

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HFE – High Flow Experiment 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

IG – Interim Guidelines 

INs – Information Needs 

KA – Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab Ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation 

 Program 

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis 

MLFF – Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

MO – Management Objective 

MRP – Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NNFC – Non-native Fish Control 

NOI – Notice of Intent 

NPCA – National Parks Conservation Association 

NPS – National Park Service 

NRC – National Research Council 

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR Funding) 

PA – Programmatic Agreement 

PBR – Paria to Badger Creek Reach 

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

R&D – Research and Development 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP – Request for Proposal 

RINs – Research Information Needs 

ROD Flows – Record of Decision Flows 

RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SA – Science Advisors 

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior 

SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office 

SOW – Statement of Work 

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group 

SPG – Science Planning Group 

SSQs – Strategic Science Questions 

SWCA – Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD – Temperature Control Device 

TCP – Traditional Cultural Property 

TEK – Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species 

TMC – Taxa of Management Concern 

TWG – Technical Work Group 

UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR – United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WAPA – Western Area Power Administration 

WY – Water Year 

(Updated: 2/20/2014) 
!"#"$%&

$&

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Southwest Biological Science Center 

August 2014 

Final Draft GCMRC Work Plan and 

Budget 

FY15/16/17 

'()*+,&-./01/2&

3!45&6178&

'(+9(&:;$<&

=>??@ABC?&

3DE4F$&6178&

AGHC?&IA9

-./01/2&

3DE4%<&6178&

IA9&=>??@ABC?&-./01/2&

3DE4#J&6178&

:;$%&KK&D$EL#$!L%EE&

:;$%&KK&D$EL#$!L%EE&

'()*+,&-./0M&N&D!L5$#LEEE&3AGHC?&

MA.?=CM&'()*+,&=>??@ABC?L&IA9

=>??@ABC?L&'(+9(&=>??@ABC?8&

:;&$OP&D$EL%%$LEEE&GAG>7&Q.02CG&

'()*+,&-./0M&N&D!L#%FLEEE&3AGHC?&

MA.?=CM&'()*+,&=>??@ABC?L&IA9

=>??@ABC?L&'(+9(&=>??@ABC?&
!"#"$%&

<&

!"#$%

&'($)*(#++%,-,./%01234,%

&*56%78//8-9%:;<=>?%

&+5*%78//8-9%@-,A4B%C-DE%

!"#F%

&'(*$'(F++%,-,./%01234,%

&'5+%78//8-9%:;<=>?%

&+5#%78//8-9%:;>D;%G.BBH-I4B%

&+56%78//8-9%@-,A4B%C-DE%

!"#6%

&'(*+F(#++%,-,./%01234,%

&'5J%78//8-9%:;<=>?%

&+5$%78//8-9%@-,A4B%C-DE%

:;&$OP&D$EL%%$LEEE&GAG>7&Q.02CG&

'()*+,&-./0M&N&D!L#%FLEEE&3AGHC?&

MA.?=CM&'()*+,&=>??@ABC?L&IA9

=>??@ABC?L&'(+9(&=>??@ABC?&

:;$%&KK&D$EL#$!L%EE&

'()*+,&-./0M&N&D!L5$#LEEE&3AGHC?&

MA.?=CM&'()*+,&=>??@ABC?L&IA9

=>??@ABC?L&'(+9(&=>??@ABC?8&

!"#$%

&'($)*(#++%,-,./%01234,%

$&

<&

O&

%R&

#&

J& F&

!&

5&

$E&

$$&

$<R&

$#&

$%&

$O&

'CASH@M1=>7&M=1C/=CM&3O#T8&

*U.>V=&>/0&WMH&M=1C/=C&3%<T8&

XC2CG>VA/&3FT8&

YA=1AC=A/A61=M&3<T8&

*061/1MG?>VA/&"M.SSA?G&3$FT8&

KKKKKKK&

KLB-M4G,N%28B4G,/H%B4/.,42%,-%

G1/,1B./%B4N-1BG4N%@)OE%

=//%G.,43-B84N%89G/124%PQ:Q%01B249%

B.,4%-9%:;>D;%.GRI8R4N%@#$5FOE%
!"#"$%&

O&

!"#F%

&'(*$'(F++%,-,./%01234,%

!"#6%

&'(*+F(#++%,-,./%01234,%

=//%G.,43-B84N%89G/124%PQ:Q%01B249%B.,4%@S#5JOE%

=//%G.,43-B84N%89G/124%PQ:Q%01B249%B.,4%

@S65)OE%

:4-LAHN8G./%NG849G4N%@J$OE%

=T1.RG%.92%UNA%NG849G4%@)#OE%

V434,.R-9%@FOE%

Q-G8-4G-9-78GN%@SOE%

=27898N,B.R-9%.92%N1LL-B,%@#FOE%

KLB-M4G,N%28B4G,/H%B4/.,42%,-%G1/,1B./%

B4N-1BG4N%@FOE%

'CASH@M1=>7&M=1C/=CM&3O!T8&

*U.>V=&>/0&WMH&M=1C/=C&3OFT8&

XC2CG>VA/&3#T8&

YA=1AC=A/A61=M&3OT8&

*061/1MG?>VA/&>/0&M.SSA?G&3$!T8&

KLB-M4G,N%28B4G,/H%B4/.,42%,-%G1/,1B./%B4N-1BG4N%

@FOE%

R&

R

R

'CASH@M1=>7&

M=1C/=CM&

*U.>V=&

>/0&WMH&

M=1C/=CM&

'CASH@M1=>7&

M=1C/=CM&

*U.>V=&

>/0&WMH&

M=1C/=CM&

:;&$OP&D$EL%%$LEEE&GAG>7&Q.02CG&

'CASH@M1=>7&M=1C/=CM&!"#$%&

*U.>V=&>/0&WMH&M=1C/=C&!'#$%&

91S>?1>/&C=A7A2@&3%T8&

(.7G.?>7&?CMA.?=CM&3#T8&

Z=A/A61MG&3<T8&

[/0CSC/0C/G&?CB1C\&3<T8&

'(+9(&>061/1MG?>VA/&!()$%&

]BC?^12HG&3#T8&

=//%G.,43-B84N%89G/124%PQ:Q%

01B249%B.,4%@##5JOE%

:;$%&KK&D$EL#$!L%EE&GAG>7&Q.02CG&

_HC&01MG?1Q.VA/&A-&

-./01/2&>77A=>VA/M&

>6A/2&GHC&6>`A?&>?C>M&

A-&M=1C/=C&>/0&

>061/1MG?>VA/&1M&

2C/C?>77@&GHC&M>6C&>M&1/&

S>MG&@C>?M&
!"#"$%&

%&

*//.>7&9CSA?V/2&6CCV/2&>/0&a/A\7C02C&>MMCMM6C/G&@W.91.BH%S*E%

_C=H/1=>7&bA?a&'?A.S&6CCV/2&@W.91.BH%S'XJ+E%

YZ:%I.02CG&*0&cA=&'?A.S&\CQ1/>?&@!40B1.BH%#JE

*0>SVBC&+>/>2C6C/G&bA?a&'?A.S&6CCV/2&@!40B1.BH%#'XS+E%

&&

[98R./%8249RUG.R-9%-\%L-,49R./%LB-M4G,N%@>.BE%

&&

_C=H/1=>7&bA?a&'?A.S&6CCV/2&@=LB8/%*X'E%

YZ:%I.02CG&*0&cA=&'?A.S&\CQ1/>?&@=LB8/%S#E%

'(+9("G?1QCM&6CCV/2&@=LB8/%SSE%

YZ?%?B-NL4G,1N%@>.H%'E%

%%

I.02CG&*0&cA=&'?A.S&\CQ1/>?&@>.H%S+E%

'(+9("G?1QCM&6CCV/2&@>.H%SSE%

*0>SVBC&+>/>2C6C/G&bA?a&'?A.S&\CQ1/>?&@>.H%S6E%

!8BN,%2B.]%YZ?%@W194%FE%

&&

YG>aCHA70C?&>/0&Y=1C/=C&*0B1MA?M&?CB1C\&@W194E

_C=H/1=>7&bA?a&'?A.S&6CCV/2M&@W194%S)XS$(%W1/H%#$E%

!89./%2B.]%YZ?%@=131N,%#E%

[6SA?G>/G&

6CCV/2M&GH>G&

>dC=GC0&

0CBC7AS6C/G&A-&

:;$#"$F"$J&_b,&

The Big Questions in Applied River Science ... 

What is the largest amount of fine sediment that can occur along the 

banks of the Colorado River, especially as eddy sandbars? 

What flow regime, in relation to the natural supply of fine sediment from 

tributaries, results in the most widespread distribution of fine sediment 

along the channel banks and in eddies? 

Do larger amounts of fine sediment along the channel banks and in 

eddies significantly change the amount and distribution of fine sediment 

that occurs above the active channel and that occurs at or near 

archaeological sites? 

What management strategies should be employed to maintain a high 

quality rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon while protecting, and 

potentially recovering, the endangered humpback chub fish 

community in Marble and Grand Canyons? 
!"#"$%&

#&

Assistant Secretary’s Guidance concerning research and monitoring 

priorities in GCMRC science planning (March 2011 and May 2014 memos) 

2011 Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

(April 30, 2012: SoI directed AMWG “to utilize these DFCs to inform and guide 

the AMWG’s future considerations”)

Secretarial Directive concerning Environmental Assessments and related 

Science Plans for (1) High-flow Experimental Releases, and (2) Non-native 

Fish Control (May 23, 2012: “I direct ... USGS ... to undertake coordinated 

implementation of the actions and commitments described and analyzed 

in the Environmental Assessments ...”) 

GCDAMP Documents and Guidance:

Core Monitoring Plan (February 2011, draft) 

Strategic Science Plan (April 2009)

Monitoring and Research Plan (April 2009) 

Priority Questions (5) and Program Goals (12) (August 2004) 

Questions, Expectations, Concerns 

Recent Guidance from Secretary’s Designee Regarding 

Triennial Budget Process and Science Planning Priorities 

• “science relevant to compliance with Endangered Species Act, particularly 

relative to native fish and humpback chub” 

• “science informing ... compliance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act, 

especially the sediment resource” 

• “science on non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery” 

science priorities originally described in March 2011 for which “the need for this science 

continues”

• “the evolving issue related to cultural/archaeological resources as linked to 

modern river processes”; “understanding ... how cultural and archaeological sites 

are linked to modern river processes” 

• “the role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in contributing to scientific 

understanding and river operations” 

• “other investigations for which there is “widespread support and further the 

purposes of the Adaptive Management Program” 

• “continue ... long-term monitoring of core ecosystem components” 
!"#"$%&

F&

“within the relevant budget constraints” 

e>0CU.>GCL&01BC?MCL&S?A0.=VBC&

>U.>V=&-AA0Q>MC&fg&

e9CKCMG>Q71MH&WMHCM&ChV?S>GC0&

-?A6&'?>/0&(>/@A/&fg&

e/>VBC&?1S>?1>/&M@MGC6M&fg&

ec12H&C7CB>VA/&ASC/&?1S>?1>/& eb>GC?&U.>71G@&444g&

MC016C/G&0CSAM1GM&fg&

'7C/&(>/@A/&)>6&=>S>=1G@&>/0&C/C?2@&1M&6>1/G>1/C0&>/0&

1/=?C>MC0&f&+>1/G>1/&ASC?>VA/>7&^Ch1Q171G@&fg&

e6>1/G>1/&M12/1W=>/=C&>/0&1/GC2?1G@&A-&

iS?CH1MGA?1=&>?=H>CA7A21=>7&>/0&H1MGA?1=&M1GCMj&

f&GH?A.2H&S?CMC?B>VA/&1/&S7>=C&fg&

)CM1?C0&:.G.?C&(A/01VA/M&

e/>VBC&WMH&MSC=1CM&>/0&

GHC1?&H>Q1G>GM&fg&

eH12H&U.>71G@&G?A.G&WMHC?@&1/&

'(k9*&fg&g&

e/>VBC&/A/KWMH&>U.>V=&Q1AG>&

>/0&GHC1?&H>Q1G>GMg&

e+>1/G>1/&=.7G.?>77@&>SS?AS?1>GC&

?CMA.?=C&=A/01VA/M&&444g&

ef&6>h16.6&ASSA?G./1G@&GA&ChSC?1C/=C&

GHC&\170C?/CMM&=H>?>=GC?&A-&GHC&

=>/@A/&444g&

e?1BC?&=A??10A?&7>/0M=>SC&f&

6>G=HCM&/>G.?>7&=A/01VA/M&fg&444g&
!"#"$%&

J&

e>0CU.>GCL&01BC?MCL&S?A0.=VBC&

>U.>V=&-AA0Q>MC&fg&

e9CKCMG>Q71MH&WMHCM&ChV?S>GC0&

-?A6&'?>/0&(>/@A/&fg&

e/>VBC&?1S>?1>/&M@MGC6M&fg&

ec12H&C7CB>VA/&ASC/&?1S>?1>/& eb>GC?&U.>71G@&444g&

MC016C/G&0CSAM1GM&fg&

'7C/&(>/@A/&)>6&=>S>=1G@&>/0&C/C?2@&1M&6>1/G>1/C0&>/0&

1/=?C>MC0&f&+>1/G>1/&ASC?>VA/>7&^Ch1Q171G@&fg&

e6>1/G>1/&M12/1W=>/=C&>/0&1/GC2?1G@&A-&

iS?CH1MGA?1=&>?=H>CA7A21=>7&>/0&H1MGA?1=&M1GCMj&

f&GH?A.2H&S?CMC?B>VA/&1/&S7>=C&fg&

)CM1?C0&:.G.?C&(A/01VA/M&

!"#$%&"'!((%)&

e/>VBC&WMH&MSC=1CM&>/0&

GHC1?&H>Q1G>GM&fg&

eH12H&U.>71G@&G?A.G&WMHC?@&1/&

'(k9*&fg&g&

e/>VBC&/A/KWMH&>U.>V=&Q1AG>&

>/0&GHC1?&H>Q1G>GMg&

e+>1/G>1/&=.7G.?>77@&>SS?AS?1>GC&

?CMA.?=C&=A/01VA/M&&444g&

ef&6>h16.6&ASSA?G./1G@&GA&ChSC?1C/=C&

GHC&\170C?/CMM&=H>?>=GC?&A-&GHC&

=>/@A/&444g&

e?1BC?&=A??10A?&7>/0M=>SC&f&

6>G=HCM&/>G.?>7&=A/01VA/M&fg&444g&

Principles in Budget Development 

• Each project comprehensively focuses on a particular resource and/or 

specific questions; each project focuses on key monitoring activities and 

resolving key management uncertainties. 

• To the degree possible, projects should reference each other and be linked 

with each other. 

• Research projects should consider cost effective strategies to resolve 

knowledge uncertainties. Field-scale experiments should be avoided unless 

based on previous laboratory experiments, literature reviews, innovative data 

analysis, and/or comparative studies of other rivers 

• Collaborate with land, species, and water management agencies. Pursue 

cost effective monitoring strategies. 

• Report the full cost of each project (i.e., incorporate logistics and remote 

sensing/GIS costs in the associated science activity) 
!"#"$%&

!&

,AGC/V>7&*77A=>VA/&A-&:;$#&Q.02CG&Q>MC0&A/&

1/1V>7&'(+9(">2C/=@&>MMCMM6C/G&A-&

MG>aCHA70C?&1/GC?CMGML&M=1C/VW=&[MM.CML&>/0&

6A/1GA?1/2&6>/0>GCM&

*U.>V=&>/0&WMH&

M=1C/=C&

3?CMC>?=H8&

i<$Tj&

*U.>V=&>/0&WMH&

M=1C/=C&

36A/1GA?1/28&

i<<Tj&

'CASH@M1=>7&M=1C/=CM&

36A/1GA?1/28&

i<$Tj&

'CASH@M1=>7&

M=1C/=CM&

3?CMC>?=H8&

i!Tj&

*061/1MG?>VBC&

M.SSA?G&

i$#Tj&

91S>?1>/&

C=A7A2@&i#Tj&

(.7G.?>7&

?CMA.?=CMiFTj&

[/1V>7&,?A`C=G&[0C/VW=>VA/&-A?&

:;$#&

&lD$$L$$ELEEE&

+A/1GA?1/2&3%!T8&

+A/1GA?1/2"?CMC>?=H&3FT8&

9CMC>?=H&3OET8&

*061/1MG?>VA/&3$#T8&

#5 >-98,-B893%LB-M4G,N%GH>G&16S7C6C/G&GHC&c:Z&,?AGA=A7&>/0&kk:(&Z*M&

S5 >-98,-B893%LB-M4G,N%GH>G&CB>7.>GC&GHC&CdC=VBC/CMM&A-&GHC&c:Z&,?AGA=A7&>/0&

kk:(&Z*M&

O4 ]GHC?&=A?C&7-98,-B893%.GRI8R4N%

%4 (?C>V/2&8924L49249,%NG849G4%B4I84^%L.94/N%A/&=?1V=>7&1MM.CM&

#4 *0B>/=1/2&GHC&89,43B.R-9%-\%,B80./%G-9G4B9N%1/GA&6A/1GA?1/2&>/0&?CMC>?=H&

F5 D4N4.BGA&GH>G&>0B>/=CM&6A/1GA?1/2&GC=H/1U.CM&>/0&>/>7@V=>7&6CGHA0M&

65 D4N4.BGA&GH>G&>0B>/=CM&S?C01=VBC&6A0C71/2&=>S>Q171VCM&

*5 D4N4.BGA&GA&?CMA7BC&=?1V=>7&M=1C/VW=&./=C?G>1/VCM4&

'.10C71/CM&-A?&,?1A?1Vm>VA/&A-&,?A`C=GM&
!"#"$%&

5&

"high elevation open riparian sediment deposits ... in sufficient volume, area, and distribution ..."

"Physical characteristics, including climate, site-specific geomorphology, dam-related discharge and 

flow, and tributary flows, generally predominate ..."

"Water quality with regards to dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations and cycling, turbidity, 

temperature, etc. is sufficient to support natural ecosystem

Desired Future Conditions 

"... maintain significance and integrity [of] prehistoric archaeological sites and historic sites]"

Project 1: Water quality monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon 

Dam releases ($0.02 GCDAMP)($0.29 million, other BoR)
!"#"$%&

$E&

Project 3: Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics ... ($1.32 million, 

GCDAMP) 

3.1.1 Monitoring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote cameras ($370,000) 

3.1.2 Monitoring sand bars and shorelines...by remote sensing ($120,000) 

3.1.3 Surveying with a camera: rapid topographic surveys... ($42,000) 

3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites ($89,000) 

3.2 Sediment storage monitoring ($460,000) 

3.3 Characterizing, and predictive modeling, of sand bar response... ($100,000) 

3.4 Connecting bed material transport, bed morphodynamics... ($36,000) 

3.5 Control network and survey support ($110,000) 

Project 2: Stream flow, water quality, and sediment transport ... 

($1.34 million, GCDAMP) 

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&

Project 4: ...Quantifying the relative importance of river-related factors that 

influence upland geomorphology and archaeological site stability ($0.34 

million, GCDAMP)

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

scales ($140,000 AMP; $75,000 BoR) 

4.2 Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons ($48,000 AMP; $75,000 BoR)

($174,000 of FY14 carryover allocated to purchase Terrestrial Laser Scanner) 

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&
!"#"$%&

$$&

Native Species -- "Native fish species and their habitats ... sustainably maintained ..."

"A high quality trout fishery in GCNRA ... that does not adversely affect the native aquatic 

community in GCNP"

Desired Future Conditions 

Project 5: Food base monitoring and research ($0.52 million, GCDAMP; $0.04 

million unfunded; $0.18 million request to WAPA for work beyond CRe) 

5.1 Are aquatic insect diversity and production recruitment limited? 

5.1.1 Insect emergence in Grand Canyon via citizen science ($120,000) 

5.1.2 Effects of hydropeaking on oviposition and egg mortality ($97,000) 

5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions ($30,000) 

5.1.4 Synthesis of the aquatic foodbase in western US tailwaters ($30,000) 

5.1.5 Natural history of oviposition for species in Grand Canyon ($26,000) 

5.1.6 Laboratory studies on insect oviposition and egg mortality ($37,000; unfunded) 

5.1.7 Comparative emergence studies in Upper Basin ($59,000; WAPA)

5.1.8 Natural history of oviposition for EPT in the Upper Basin ($25,000; WAPA) 

5.2 Patterns and controls of aquatic invertebrate drift in Colorado River tailwaters

5.2.1 Characterize and monitor drift, emergence in Glen Canyon ($52,000) 

5.2.2 Drift monitoring in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons($87,000) 

5.2.3 Link drift to channel bed shear stress ($21,000) 

5.2.4 Link drift patterns to substrate in Glen, Marble, Grand Canyons ($21,000) 

5.2.5 Comparative drift in Upper and Lower Basin tailwaters ($94,000 ;WAPA)

5.3 Primary Production Monitoring in Glen Marble and Grand Canyons 

5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen Canyon algae production ($26,000 

5.3.2 Monitoring dissolved O2 in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons ($15,000) 

5.3.3 Developing automated tools for estimating algae production (outside funding) 

* WAPA: submitted to Western Area Power Administration for funding consideration 

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&
!"#"$%&

$<&

Project 6: Main-stem Colorado River humpback chub 

aggregations and fish community dynamics ($.57 million, 

GCDAMP) ($0.10 million, other BoR) ($0.02 million 

unfunded)

6.1 Main-stem Colorado River humpback chub aggregation monitoring ($220,000)

6.2 Aggregation recruitment ($84,000; other BoR) 

6.3 Monitoring main-stem aggregations with PIT tag antennas (pilot) ($18,000; other BoR) 

6.4 System wide electrofishing ($270,000) 

6.5 Brown trout natal origins through body pigmentation patterns... ($16,000; unfunded)

6.6 Direct main-stem augmentation of humpback chub (start in FY17) 

6.7 Rainbow trout early life stage survey ($77,000) 

6.8 Lees Ferry creel survey (fund in FY16/17)

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&

Project 7: Population ecology of humpback chub in and around the Little 

Colorado River ($1.29 million, GCDAMP) ($0.26 million other BoR)

7.1 Spring/fall humpback chub abundance estimates in the LCR ($530,000) 

7.2 Juvenile chub monitoring near the LCR confluence ($450,000) 

7.3 July LCR juv. humpback chub marking to est. production and outmigration ($110,000; other BoR) 

7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring in the LCR ($54,000) 

7.5 Food web monitoring in the LCR ($140,000) 

7.6 Gravel substrate limitation for humpback chub reproduction in the LCR ($12,000; (other BoR) 

7.7 CO2 as a limiting factor early life history stages of humpback chub in the LCR ($96,000; other BoR) 

7.8 Evaluate effects of Asian tapeworm infestation on Juvenile humpback chub ($17,000) 

7.9 Development of a non-lethal tool to assess physiological condition of HBC... ($42,000; other BoR) 

7.10 Humpback chub population modeling ($97,000) 

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&
!"#"$%&

$O&

Project 8: Experimental actions to increase abundance and distribution of 

native fishes in Grand Canyon ($.18 million, GCDAMP)

8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of BNT removal ($96,000) 

8.2 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls ($89,000) 

8.3 Fish population monitoring Protocol Evaluation Panel (fund in FY16) 

8.4 Invasive species surveillance and response (fund in FY17) 

8.5 Genetic Monitoring of Lower Basin humpback chub (fund in FY17)

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&

Project 9: Understanding factors determining recruitment, population size, 

growth, and movement of rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons ($0.92 

million, GCDAMP; $0.14 million unfunded) 

9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design ($180,000) 

9.2 Detection of RBT movement from upper Colorado River below GCD ($350,000) 

9.3 Exploring the mechanisms behind trout growth, reproduction, and movement in Glen and Marble 

Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves as an indicator of physiological condition ($100,000) 

9.4 Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish ($86,000; unfunded) 

9.5 Meta-analysis and development of reactive distance relationships... ($20,000; $18,000 unfunded)

9.6 Lab evaluation of turbidity as a management tool to constrain RBT populations and reduce 

predation/competition on juvenile humpback chub ($37,000) 

9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river ($33,000; $33,000; unfunded) 

9.8 Mechanisms that limit RBT and BNT growth in other western tailwater systems ($72,000) 

9.9 Contingency planning for HFEs and subsequent RBT population management ($72,000) 

9.10 Effects of HFEs on the physiological condition of RBT in Glen Canyon ($54,000) 

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&
!"#"$%&

$%&

Project 10: Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow 

trout tailwater fishery end? – Integrating fish and channel 

mapping data below Glen Canyon Dam ($0.15 million, 

GCDAMP)

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&

Project 11: Riparian vegetation studies: ground-based and landscape-scale 

riparian vegetation monitoring and plant response-guild research associated 

with sandbar evolution and wildlife habitat analysis (FY15: $0.49 million, 

GCDAMP) 

11.1 Ground-based vegetation monitoring ($180,000) 

11.2 Periodic landscape scale vegetation mapping and analysis using remotely sensed data 

($150,000) 

11.3 Influence of sediment and vegetation feedbacks on the evolution of sandbars in Grand Canyon

($100,000) 

11.4 Linking dam operations to changes in terrestrial fauna ($24,000) 

11.5 Science review panel of successes and challenges in non-native vegetation control in the 

Colorado River and Rio Grande watersheds ($33,000;) 

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&
!"#"$%&

$#&

Project 12: Dam-related effects on the distribution and abundance of selected 

culturally-important plants in the Colorado River ecosystem ($0.05 million, 

GCDAMP)

12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of cultural landscape change ($52,000) 

12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes (begins in FY16)

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&

13.1 Economic values of recreational resources along the Colorado River – Grand Canyon 

whitewater floater and Lees Ferry angler values ($70,000) 

13.2 Tribal values and perspectives of resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam (begin in 

FY17) 

13.3 Applied decision methods for the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Plan ($110,000) 

Project 13: Socio-economic monitoring and research ($0.18 million, 

GCDAMP) 

:;$#&S?ASAMC0&\A?a&
!"#"$%&

$F&

Project 14: Geographic information systems, services, and support (FY15: $0.23 

million, GCDAMP)

Project 15: Administration and Support (FY15: $1.30 

million, GCDAMP)

:;&$F&>/0&:;&$J&

*/V=1S>GC0&'()*+,&-./01/2P&

:;$F&KK&D54E&61771A/&

:;&$J&KK&D54O&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY("'(+9(&1/01?C=G&=AMG&?>GCMP&

:;$F&o&<$4OT&

:;$J&o&<J4h%T&
!"#"$%&

$J&

:;&$F&>/0&:;&$J&

*/V=1S>GC0&'()*+,&-./01/2P&

:;$F&KK&D54E&61771A/&

:;&$J&KK&D54O&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY("'(+9(&1/01?C=G&=AMG&?>GCMP&

:;$F&o&<$4OT&

:;$J&o&<J4%T&

,?1A?1VmC&6A/1GA?1/2&>/0&?CMC>?=H&>=VB1VCM&

YH1p&?CMC>?=H&S?A`C=GM&-?A6&O&@C>?M&GA&<&@C>?M&

)C7>@&MG>?G&V6CM&A-&MA6C&S?A`C=GM&

9C6ABC&MA6C&S?A`C=GM&-?A6&'()*+,&-./01/2&

9C0.=C&'()*+,&-./01/2&>/0&16S7C6C/G&=AMG&M>B1/2&

6>/0>GCP&

:;$F&o&'()*+,&-./01/2&>G&5OT&A-&10C/VWC0&=AMGM&

:;$J&o&'()*+,&-./01/2&>G&5#T&A-&10C/VWC0&=AMGM&

Project 3: Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics ... 

($1.33 million) (FY16: $1.27 million) (FY17: $1.37 million) 

3.1.1 (FY15: $370,000) (FY16: $350,000) (FY17: $370,000) 

3.1.2 (FY15: $120,000) (FY16: $130,000) (FY17: $140,000) 

3.1.3 (FY15: $42,000) (FY16: $73,000) (FY17: $77,000) 

3.1.4 (FY15: $89,000) (FY16: $45,000; $45,000) (FY17: 45,000; $45,000) 

3.2 (FY15: $460,000) (FY16: $520,000) (FY17: $550,000) 

3.3 (FY15: $100,000) (FY16: $110,000) (FY17: $120,000) 

3.4 (FY15: $36,000) (FY16: $18,000$18,000) (FY17: $18,000; $18,000) 

3.5 (FY15: $110,000) (FY16: $120,000) (FY17: $120,000) 

Project 2: Stream flow, water quality, and sediment transport ... 

(FY15: $1.34 million) (FY16: $1.35 million) (FY17: $1.46 million) 

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&
!"#"$%&

$!&

91BC?K0CSAM1GC0&3^.B1>78&

M>/0Q>?&

b1/0KQ7A\/&3>CA71>/8&M>/0&

<B.1,(%S+#S%

Project 4: ...Quantifying the relative importance of river-related factors that 

influence upland geomorphology and archaeological site stability (FY15: 

$0.34 million) (FY16: $0.57 million) (FY17: $0.59 million)

4.1 (FY15: $140,000; $75,000 BoR) (FY16: $140,000; $75,000 BoR) (FY17: $160,000; $93,000 BoR) 

4.2 (FY15: $48,000 AMP; $75,000 BoR) (FY16: $270,000; $75,000 BoR) (FY17: $250,000; $93,000 

BoR) 

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&

5.1 Are aquatic insect diversity and production recruitment limited? 

5.1.1 (FY15: $120,000) (FY16: $120,000) (FY17: $140,000) 

5.1.2 (FY15: $97,000) (FY16: $110,000) (FY17: $120,000) 

5.1.3 (FY15: $30,000) (FY16: $30,000) (FY17: $38,000) 

5.1.4 (FY15: $30,000) (FY16: $32,000) (FY17: $38,000) 

5.1.5 (FY15: $26,000) (FY16: $28,000) (FY17: $31,000) 

5.1.6 (FY15: $37,000) (FY16: $40,000) (FY17: $47,000) 

5.1.7 (FY15: $59,000) (FY16: $64,000) (FY17: $75,000) (WAPA)

5.1.8 (FY15: $25,000) (FY16: $27,000) (FY17: $31,000) (WAPA) 

5.2 Patterns and controls of aquatic invertebrate drift in Colorado River tailwaters

5.2.1 (FY15: $52,000) (FY16: $67,000) (FY17: $88,000) 

5.2.2 (FY15: $87,000) (FY16: $116,000) (FY17: $157,000) 

5.2.3 (FY15: $21,000) (FY16: $25,000) (FY17: $30,000) 

5.2.4 (FY15: $21,000) (FY16: $25,000) (FY17: $30,000) 

5.2.5 (FY15: $94,000) (FY16: $168,000) (FY17: $203,000) (WAPA)

5.3 Primary Production Monitoring in Glen Marble and Grand Canyons 

5.3.1 (FY15: $26,000) (FY16: $27,000) (FY17: $14,000) 

5.3.2 (FY15: $15,000) (FY16: $17,000) (FY17: $18,000) 

5.3.3 (FY15-FY17: outside funding) 

* WAPA: submitted to Western Area Power Administration for funding consideration 

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&

Project 5: Food base monitoring and research (FY15: $0.52 million; FY16: $0.55 

million; FY17: $0.57 million) 
!"#"$%&

$5&

Project 6: Main-stem Colorado River humpback chub 

aggregations and fish community dynamics (FY15: $.67 million) 

(FY16: $0.65 million) (FY17: $0.70 million)

6.1 (FY15: $218,000) (FY16: $240,000) (FY17: $250,000)

6.2 (FY15: $84,000; BoR) (FY16: $53,000; BoR) (FY17: $50,000) 

6.3 (FY15: $18,000; BoR) (FY16: $14,000; BoR) (FY17: $9,000) 

6.4 (FY15: $270,000) (FY16: $280,000) (FY17: $320,000) 

6.5 (FY15: $16,000) (FY16: $16,000) 

6.6 (FY17: $43,000) 

6.7 (FY15: $77,000) (FY16: $79,000) (FY17: $90,000) 

6.8 (FY16: $26,000) (FY17: $26,000)

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Q17%-\%.//%4/4749,N%^8//%04%B421G42%89%!"#F%.92%!"#6%0H%6O%.92%$O(%B4NL4GRI4/H5%

Project 7: Population ecology of humpback chub in and around the Little 

Colorado River (FY15: $1.55 million) (FY16: $1.60 million) (FY17: $1.30 million)

7.1 (FY15: $531,000) (FY16: $540,000) (FY17: $550,000) 

7.2 (FY15: $450,000) (FY16: $470,000) (FY17: $180,000) 

7.3 (FY15: $110,000; BoR) (FY16: $120,000) (FY17: $130,000) 

7.4 (FY15: $54,000) (FY16: $110,000) (FY17: $150,000) 

7.5 (FY15: $140,000) (FY16: $87,000) (FY17: $3,000) 

7.6 (FY15: $12,000; BoR) (FY16: $12,000; BoR) (FY17: $14,000) 

7.7 (FY15: $96,000; BoR) (FY16: $108,000; BoR) (FY17: $64,000) 

7.8 (FY15: $17,000) (FY16: $17,000) (FY17: $18,000) 

7.9 (FY15: $42,000; BoR) (FY16: $95,000; BoR) (FY17: $52,000) 

7.10 (FY15: $97,000) (FY16: $150,000) (FY17: $210,000) 

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&
!"#"$%&

<E&

Project 8: Experimental actions to increase abundance and distribution of 

native fishes in Grand Canyon (FY15: $0.19 million) (FY16: $0.21 million) 

(FY17: $0.28 million)

8.1 (FY15: $96,000) (FY16: $118,000) (FY17: $120,000) 

8.2 (FY15: $89,000) (FY16: $88,000) (FY17: $88,000) 

8.3 (FY16: $21,000) 

8.4 (FY17: $52,000) 

8.5 (FY17: $33,000)

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&

Project 9: Understanding factors determining recruitment, population size, 

growth, and movement of rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons (FY15: 

$1.01 million) (FY16: $1.02 million) (FY17: $0.74 million) 

9.1 (FY15: $180,000) (FY16: $210,000) (FY17: $77,000) 

9.2 (FY15: $350,000) (FY16: $440,000) (FY17: $370,000) 

9.3 (FY15: $100,000) 

9.4 (FY15: $86,000) (FY16: $103,000) (FY17: $92,000) 

9.5 (FY15: $20,000; $18,000) (FY16: $20,000; $18,000) (FY17: $18,000; $17,000) 

9.6 (FY15: $37,000) (FY16: $29,000) (FY17: $30,000) 

9.7 (FY15: $33,000; $33,000)(FY16: $35,000; 35,000) (FY17: $33,000; 33,000) 

9.8 (FY15: $72,000) (FY16: $81,000)

9.9 (FY15: $72,000) (FY16: $62,000) (FY17: $99,000) 

9.10 (FY15: $54,000) (FY16: $70,000) (FY17: $5,000) 

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&
!"#"$%&

<$&

Project 10: Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater fishery 

end? – integrating fish and channel mapping data below Glen Canyon Dam 

(FY15: $0.15 million) (FY16: $0.15 million) (FY17: $0.13 million)

Project 11: Riparian vegetation studies: ground-based and landscape-scale 

riparian vegetation monitoring and plant response-guild research associated 

with sandbar evolution and wildlife habitat analysis (FY15: $0.49 million) 

(FY16: $0.51 million) (FY17: $0.48 million) 

11.1 (FY15: $180,000) (FY16: $190,000) (FY17: $210,000) 

11.2 (FY15: $150,000) (FY16: $130,000) (FY17: $130,000) 

11.3 (FY15: $100,000) (FY16: $98,000) (FY17: $50,000) 

11.4 (FY15: $24,000) (FY16: $136,000) (FY17: $110,000) 

11.5 (FY15: $33,000) 

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&
!"#"$%&

<<&

Project 12: Dam-related effects on the distribution and abundance of selected 

culturally-important plants in the Colorado River ecosystem (FY15: $0.05 million) 

(FY16: $0.08 million)

12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of cultural landscape change (FY15: $52,000) (FY16: $80,000)

12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes (FY16: $31,000)

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&

13.1 (FY15: $70,000) (FY16: $73,000) 

13.2 (FY16: $137,000) (FY17: $128,000) 

13.3 (FY15: $107,000) (FY16: $147,000) (FY17: $228,000) 

Project 13: Socio-economic monitoring and research (FY15: $0.18 

million) (FY16: $0.20 million) (FY17: $0.34 million) 

[/01B10.>7&S?A`C=G&C7C6C/GM&KK&QA70&1/01=>GCM&S?ASAMC0&-A?&-./01/2q&/A?6>7&GChG&1/01=>GCM&./-./0C0&1/&1/01=>GC0&@C>?q&GAG>7&A-&>77&S?A`C=G&

C7C6C/GM&1M&CU.>7&GA&A?121/>7&=AMG&CMV6>GC4&Y.6&A-&>77&C7C6C/GM&\177&QC&?C0.=C0&1/&:;$F&>/0&:;$J&Q@&JT&>/0&#TL&?CMSC=VBC7@4&
!"#"$%&

<O&

Project 14: Geographic information systems, services, and support (FY15: $0.22 

million) (FY16: $0.22 million) (FY17: $0.24 million)

Project 15: Administration and Support (FY15: $1.30 

million) (FY16: $1.33 million) (FY17: $1.48 million)

[6S>=G&A-&1/=?C>M1/2&[/01?C=G&(AMGM&A/&,?A2?>6&

:;$#&

GAG>7&'(+9(&S?A2?>6&=AMGM&KK&D54##&61771A/&

'()*+,&M.SSA?G&KK&D!4J&61771A/&

AGHC?&IA9&M.SSA?G&o&DE4!&61771A/&

./-./0C0&S?A`C=GM&KK&DE4$5&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY(&Q.?0C/&lD$4E&61771A/&

GAG>7&1/01?C=G&=AMGM&lD$4#&61771A/&

QCQ;%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%_F$O%

,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%.N%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%LB-3B.7%G-N,N%_#FO%

*+,!)&-.+/.!0&"+1,1&2&,+,!)&3(43.%",&"+1,1&5&6789:&03))3+(&
!"#"$%&

<%&

:;$#&

GAG>7&'(+9(&S?A2?>6&=AMGM&KK&D54##&61771A/&

'()*+,&M.SSA?G&KK&D!4J&61771A/&

AGHC?&IA9&M.SSA?G&o&DE4!&61771A/&

./-./0C0&S?A`C=GM&KK&DE4$5&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY(&Q.?0C/&KK&D$4E$&61771A/&

GAG>7&1/01?C=G&=AMGM&KK&D$4#O&61771A/&

QCQ;%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%`%F$O%

,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%.N%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%LB-3B.7%G-N,N%`%#FO%

*+,!)&-.+/.!0&"+1,1&2&,+,!)&3(43.%",&"+1,1&5&789:&03))3+(&

[6S>=G&A-&1/=?C>M1/2&[/01?C=G&(AMGM&A/&,?A2?>6&

:;$F&

GAG>7&'(+9(&S?A2?>6&=AMGM&KK&D54!F&61771A/&

'()*+,&M.SSA?G&KK&D54E&61771A/&

AGHC?&IA9&M.SSA?G&o&DE4J%&61771A/&

>/V=1S>GC0&'(+9(&=>??@ABC?&KK&DE4$&61771A/&

'(+9(&JT&?C0.=VA/&KK&DE4F5&61771A/&?C0.=C0&-?A6&A?121/>7&Q.02CG&?CU.CMG&

./-./0C0&S?A`C=GM&KK&DE4F$&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY(&Q.?0C/&lD$4%&61771A/&

GAG>7&1/01?C=G&=AMGM&lD$45&61771A/&

QCQ;%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%_6JO%

,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%.N%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%LB-3B.7%G-N,N%_#'O%

*+,!)&-.+/.!0&"+1,1&2&,+,!)&3(43.%",&"+1,1&5&6789:&03))3+(&

:;$#&

GAG>7&'(+9(&S?A2?>6&=AMGM&KK&D54##&61771A/&

'()*+,&M.SSA?G&KK&D!4J&61771A/&

AGHC?&IA9&M.SSA?G&o&DE4!&61771A/&

./-./0C0&S?A`C=GM&KK&DE4$5&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY(&Q.?0C/&KK&D$4E$&61771A/&

GAG>7&1/01?C=G&=AMGM&KK&D$4##&61771A/&

QCQ;%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%`%F$O%

,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%.N%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%LB-3B.7%G-N,N%`%#FO%

*+,!)&-.+/.!0&"+1,1&2&,+,!)&3(43.%",&"+1,1&5&789:&03))3+(&

[6S>=G&A-&1/=?C>M1/2&[/01?C=G&(AMGM&A/&,?A2?>6&

:;$F&

GAG>7&'(+9(&S?A2?>6&=AMGM&KK&D54!F&61771A/&

'()*+,&M.SSA?G&KK&D54E&61771A/&

AGHC?&IA9&M.SSA?G&o&DE4J%&61771A/&

>/V=1S>GC0&'(+9(&=>??@ABC?&KK&DE4$&61771A/&

'(+9(&JT&?C0.=VA/&KK&DE4F5&61771A/&?C0.=C0&-?A6&A?121/>7&Q.02CG&?CU.CMG&

./-./0C0&S?A`C=GM&KK&DE4F$&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY(&Q.?0C/&KK&D$4O#&61771A/&

GAG>7&1/01?C=G&=AMGM&KK&D$4!#&61771A/&

QCQ;%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%`%6JO%

,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%.N%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%LB-3B.7%G-N,N%`%#'O%

*+,!)&-.+/.!0&"+1,1&2&,+,!)&3(43.%",&"+1,1&5&789:&03))3+(&

:;$J&

_AG>7&'(+9(&S?A2?>6&=AMGM&KK&D54!$&61771A/&

'()*+,&M.SSA?G&KK&D54O&61771A/&

]GHC?&IA9&M.SSA?G&o&DE4#<&61771A/&

'(+9(&#T&?C0.=VA/&KK&DE4%5&61771A/&?C0.=C0&-?A6&A?121/>7&Q.02CG&?CU.CMG&

n/-./0C0&S?A`C=GM&KK&DE4F$&61771A/&

nY'Y"YIY(&Q.?0C/&lD$4F&61771A/&

_AG>7&1/01?C=G&=AMGM&lD<4$&61771A/&

QCQ;%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%4NR7.,42%8928B4G,%G-N,N%_66O%

,-,./%8928B4G,%G-N,N%.N%LB-L-BR-9%-\%,-,./%LB-3B.7%G-N,N%_SSO%

*+,!)&-.+/.!0&"+1,1&2&,+,!)&3(43.%",&"+1,1&5&67;9;&03))3+(&


Response to Reviewer Comments 

Triennial Work Plan 

Fiscal Years 2015-2017 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

August 5, 2014 

 
This document provides responses to comments received by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center (GCMRC) to its draft final Work Plan for FY15–17. This draft final Work Plan 

was made available on June 6. 

Comments were received from: 

1) Science Advisors (Garrett et al., June 30); 

2) Dr. Colden Baxter regarding Project 5; 

3) Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group comments; 

4) Glen Canyon NRA staff; and, 

5) Grand Canyon NP staff. 

This document is organized by projects, and the specific comments related to each project and 

provided by each reviewer are included. 

A response to general comments is provided at the beginning of this document. 

 
Response to General Comments Provided by the Science Advisors 

Comment: The new three year plan proposed for this review could be the opportunity for the 

AMP to accomplish improved short term (1-3 years) and longer term (5-7 years) planning. Three 

years provides sufficient time to implement a multi-year tiered program and gain some 

assessment of both its potential success and needs over a longer term. ... This proposed plan 

taken in two cycles could provide possibly an effective format for long term planning. However, 

to accomplish that end the AMP should consider several improvements and changes to the plan 

in the current cycle (2015-2017), including: improved integrated science planning; improved 

inclusion of BOR, other federal, state and tribal agency management and science programs 

explicitly connected to this program; incorporating and approving the complete elements of a 

core monitoring plan directly into this plan; and incorporating strategic management and science 

guidelines directly into this plan.

Response: This comment is important. Although GCMRC is not in a position to adopt such a 

policy level recommendation, we recognize that the new three-year cycle provides an 

opportunity to focus, at times, on revising the planning guidance developed by the AMWG and 

TWG. Chapter Two of the Work Plan now includes a lengthy examination of the policy 

guidance that has been provided to GCMRC in the past few years. Clearly, this new guidance is 

sometimes at odds with past GCDAMP guidance in terms of which activities ought to be the 

focus of GCMRC’s work. Re-evaluation of this guidance is in order.

Comment: An example of significant programs deserving more inclusion is cultural resources.

Response: This comment is a good suggestion. GCMRC continues to work towards improving 

ways to incorporate cultural resource concerns into the overall science program.

Comment: Compartmentalization and possible redundancy of data collection for individual 

projects could be easily seen as needing improvement with a more systematic program strategy

Response: This issue is an important one, and GCMRC has struggled to work within its own 

group of scientists and with collaborators to find ways to pursue a systematic program of study. 

We are excited by the many ways this plan has streamlined some activities, such as fish 

population measurements, but there is much more to do. We have convened science panels on a 

few key topics and look forward to collaborating with the stakeholders on this issue.

Comment: The organization and layout of the plan could be improved for communication to the 

GCDAMP stakeholders and a wider audience. It is a large document, just short of 500 pages. 

Its complexity and importance calls for a well-designed and written executive summary that can 

stand as an independent document.

Response: The Introductory pages of Chapter 2 were greatly expanded to provide this executive 

summary. 

Comment: A budget summary is needed in the introduction. 
Response: We reconfigured the Appendices to better reflect budget planning and expanded 

Chapter 2 to describe budget allocations. 

Comment: It is proposed that the Lake Powell program administration is also to be moved to 

BOR. 

Response: This is a miscommunication on our part. The Lake Powell program will continue to 

be housed within GCMRC although a science panel will be convened to explore alternative 

strategies for a comprehensive limnology and ecology monitoring program. 

 
Project 1. Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release 

Water-Quality Monitoring 

Response to Comments from Science Advisors for Project 1 

Comment: Science Advisors support administrative transfer of the Lake Powell water-quality 

monitoring program to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); however, general activities should be 

retained. 

Response: The Science Advisors review of the GCMRC Triennial Work Plan indicates 

concurrence with a recommendation to transfer the administration of the Lake Powell waterquality program to the (BOR). This may be the result of a misunderstanding of Jack Schmidt’s 

statement that the Lake Powell program was external to the GCDAMP and not part of GCMRC’s 

GCDAMP budget or its approval process. It is not the intent of GCMRC, nor that of BOR, to 

transfer administration of the Lake Powell program. 

 In 2000, based on an assessment of existing data relating to the linkage of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations with water quality in Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam releases, a decision was 

made to have BOR provide funding this program, and that it be administered and maintained by 

GCMRC. This was in part due to concerns raised by some stakeholders as to whether monitoring 

in Lake Powell was indeed part of the purview of the GCDAMP. Since 2000, BOR has directly 

funded the Lake Powell program under its Upper Colorado Water Quality program and has 

provided additional support with field assistance from BOR and NPS, sample analysis through 

BOR and contract laboratories, and the purchase of equipment such as the Seabird SBE19plusV2 CTD profiling instrument. The Lake Powell monitoring program continues to be 

directed and administratively managed by GCMRC, with cooperation and sole funding on a 

calendar year basis provided by BOR under Interagency Agreement No. R13PG40028, effective 

through December 31, 2017. 

 Under GCMRC administration, the Lake Powell program accomplishes the needs of BOR’s 

Upper Colorado Region in its effort to maintain current information on the status and trends of 

water quality in its many reservoirs, with primary focus on Lake Powell as the integration point 

for water in the Upper Colorado River basin. It also serves the GCDAMP, in its monitoring of 

internal processes and conditions in the reservoir and the resultant physical, chemical, and 

biological quality of water released from Glen Canyon Dam. Sampling is conducted from the 

GCMRC Uniflite limnology vessel. GCMRC’s storage and logistics capabilities provide support 

for equipment storage and maintenance, and outfitting of multi-day reservoir surveys. More 

importantly, the administration of the Lake Powell program under GCMRC provides the 

scientific rigor and information dissemination requirement of a major USGS science center. 

 The Science Advisors state that administration by the BOR offers great potential for 

management application of accomplished science. However, it is deemed that management 

application of accomplished science can be effectively achieved if data on which management 

decisions are based are independent, reliable, readily available, and have undergone scientific 

review and scrutiny. 
Comment: The Lake Powell program needs to have an AMWG and agency review regarding 

how it can best contribute to specified GCDAMP or agency goals, DFCs, critical questions, etc. 

in the future. There is a concern that the program’s resources are allocated to the production of 

data without clear science plans related to critical goals and resource questions of the AMP. 

Response: A Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) review of the Lake Powell program was 

scheduled to be performed in FY 2012; this was combined with the GCMRC Aquatic Foodbase 

program and was conducted in January 2012. However, most of the focus of this PEP was 

focused on downstream foodbase work and the ability of the Lake Powell and tailwater 

monitoring program to provide useful information for that program. As a result the Lake Powell 

program has not undergone scientific review from limnological standpoint since the initial Lake 

Powell PEP of 2002 and GCMRC supports a subsequent review panel process for this program. 

As stated in the Overview of the FY 15–17 Projects in Chapter 2 of the Triennial Work Plan, 

GCMRC proposes to fund a Science Review Panel to evaluate past studies of reservoir physical 

limnology and ecology that have focused on Lakes Powell or Mead. This Panel will be asked to 

make recommendations to the GCDAMP, Reclamation, and to other relevant agencies on how 

reservoir limnology and ecology ought to be monitored in the future and to make and to make 

recommendations about how existing and new modeling tools could be used to predict future 

conditions in Lake Powell. It is anticipated that the GCDAMP program will be closely involved 

with this process to ensure data collection and research efforts are aligned with the goals and 

needs of the GCDAMP. 

The Science Advisors stated that early reviews of the program determined that data 

development was not properly automated, verified, and reported on a timely basis. It is 

acknowledged that this has been a shortcoming of the program is its effort to compile all 

previously collected data from Lake Powell in a common database while maintaining the 

monitoring program. Physical and chemical have now been published as Data Series Report DS471and the process for annual revision with current data is now in place. A draft report of 

existing biological data through 2009 is in review. A backlog of biological samples since 2010 is 

now being processed under a contract administered by BOR. Analysis of this backlog is 

approximately 50% complete and final results are expected in 2014. After completion of this 

analysis, it is anticipated that the DS-471 physicochemical data report and biological data reports 

be combined into one comprehensive document, revised on an annual basis. 

With the analysis of the current backlog of biological samples completed, the all historical 

data will be available in the WQDB database. In order to most effectively make these data 

available to a broad audience, the development of an enhanced web-based system for the serving 

of information is planned, which will provide improved access to management agencies, outside 

researchers, stakeholders and other users and will drive additional questions, collaborations, and 

focus scientific data collection efforts. This system of reservoir water-quality information has 

been designed to be applied to other reservoir monitoring programs. As such, it is broad and 

flexible enough to be capable of managing data and the generation of informational products 

from any number of reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin and could serve as a primary data 

repository for a basin-wide assessment of conditions and climate change impacts. 

Another shortcoming of the Lake Powell program is the current lack of an integrated 

synthesis and interpretation of existing data. This synthesis would describe hydrodynamic, 

chemical, and biological processes in Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater, based on 

previous observations and modeled data. In order to arrive at such a synthesis, the CE-QUAL-
W2 reservoir simulation model must be used to test hypotheses generated by the synthesis and 

explain observed processes. These processes include prediction of future climate scenarios and 

reservoir storage, the effects of reservoir drawdown, what conditions must be in place to achieve 

a winter underflow through the reservoir, quantification of sediment oxygen demand in 

resuspended deltaic sediments, and the effect of dam operations and high-flow operations on 

mixing and stratification patterns. The development of such a synthesis remains a goal of the 

program and is expected to be accomplished in the FY5-17 period. 

Comment: An assessment of previously analyzed biological samples should be made before 

completing analysis for the current backlog of samples. 

Response: The Science Advisors proposed that if the total time and cost of analyzing all 

biological sample is large, small subsamples should first be analyzed to determine the expected 

value of additional learning. The delay in the analysis of these samples stemmed in part from the 

desire to have BOR administer the plankton analysis contract so that other samples from the 

Upper Colorado basin could be included take advantage of volume discounts for a large number 

of samples. That contract has been issued and all samples have already been sent out for analysis. 

 Having all backlogged samples analyzed results in a more complete dataset, associated 

with other physical and chemical monitoring and contributes to a robust baseline of information 

on which to based future potential impacts of quagga mussel populations. 

Comment: Modeling capabilities cooperatively developed by BOR and GCMRC are important 

tools and should be maintained as a collaborative project. 

Response: The Science Advisors had favorable comments about the collaborative development 

between BOR and GCMRC of the CE-QUAL-W2 in providing short-term projections of 

temperature patterns from Glen Canyon Dam for its 24-month study and LTEMP projections. 

While BOR currently runs the model for these purposes, further development of the model 

would allow its use to facilitate the development of a Lake Powell data synthesis, answer various 

research questions, and provide more long-term predictive capabilities to evaluate potential 

climate change effects. Therefore, GCMRC proposes further collaboration with BOR, other 

USGS offices, and academic institutions so that the model could be run by a variety of users for 

multiple purposes, while keeping basic components such as meteorological and hydrological 

input files, reservoir bathymetry information, and other parameters with the portable model. As 

noted in the work plan, the installation of additional meteorological stations on the reservoir, 

resumption of inflow water-quality monitoring, and facilitation of data exchange between the 

model and WQDB database are expected to be accomplished within the next year.

Comment: A basin-wide systems assessment to predict and mitigate potential impacts of climate 

change should be undertaken by BOR in collaboration with GCMRC and other basin entities. 

Response: The effects to Lake Powell of a changing climate are primarily the result of the 

amount and quality of water entering the reservoir from upstream sources. While extremes in 

discharge entering Lake Powell are mitigated to some extent by operation of upstream reservoirs, 

upper basin hydrological patterns, contrasted with release requirements from Glen Canyon Dam, 
result in fluctuation of storage in Lake Powell and other reservoirs. This fluctuation in storage, 

therefore, is an integrated indicator of climate patterns in the entire Upper Colorado River basin.

GCMRC supports the idea of a basin system assessment and modeling of management needs 

to mitigate predicted impacts of climate change in the basin. This would involve multi-agency 

funding and cooperation. Sources of funding for this large initiative are yet to be determined. 

Under the current funding scenario, BOR’s budget for Lake Powell is included in its waterquality monitoring program for other Upper Colorado basin reservoirs and is limited to the 

agency’s basic needs for information to describe basin-wide conditions. More detailed research 

and increased funding for the Lake Powell program has not been supported at this point. 

Concerns continue with some stakeholders as to the inclusion and funding of Lake Powell work 

within the GCDAMP. Other outside funding may be available from grants, other agencies, or 

other undetermined sources. The Science Advisors stated that GCMRC is most capable program 

in The Colorado River basin to address these issues and wondered why a Lake Powell-based 

collaborative initiative on systems analysis of the basin had not been developed. It is felt that 

without broader agency cooperation, discussion, and funding, the development of such an 

initiative is premature at this time. However, much work could be accomplished to lay the 

groundwork for such an initiative, including the development of a web-based information 

delivery system for Lake Powell, which could be applied to all reservoirs in the Colorado River 

Basin and serve as an integrated source of information on which to base assessments of climate 

change, operational scenarios, and other management actions. 

 
Project 2. Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment 

Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

Comment: “Overall, the proposal would be considerably more compelling if it focused more on 

evidence that continued monitoring and upgraded methods can change our perspectives. Even 

for strong supporters of monitoring, it is worrisome to perceive that the effort of monitoring itself 

takes precedent over creative use of the data to inform fundamental understanding and real-world 

management. That was the sense conveyed by the proposal; while 2 full pages of lists of 

relevant agency priorities/mandates was provided, only a single paragraph (“Recent research on 

the Colorado...”) offered any specific indication of how the new data can boost understanding 

and improve management. How wrong were we with 60-minute time resolution instead of 15 

minutes? How much change in sediments was observed during the ongoing drought compared to 

before? How might these data inform future climate change adaptation efforts? Just how are 

these data used to trigger and evaluate the High Flow Protocol? Tackling these kinds of issues 

with even a few sentences would go a long way toward justifying associated budgets. The work 

is really important, but it appears that funding success is taken for granted by the proposers 

(although SA sabers were rattled regarding the calamitous consequences of under-funding this 

monitoring).”

Response :This comment shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the reviewer with respect to: 

(1) the published peer-reviewed scientific literature in the field of sediment transport, (2) the 

results published in the scientific literature by the PI of this proposal and his colleagues, (3) 

parameters listed as required in the DOI-approved DFC document, and (4) the decrease in 

random error with an increase in the number observations. 

Of all of the projects at GCMRC, Project 2 has perhaps the best track record in the number of 

publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since 2000, Project 2 has published 64 

papers in the scientific literature, at a rate of 4.3 papers per year. Many of these publications 

have had notable impact on the science of sediment transport and have resulted in changes in 

dam operations. Here are a few examples of papers that have not only had general impact but 

have resulted in changes in dam management. Topping and others (WRR, 2000a, 2000b) and 

Rubin and others (EOS, 2002) directly led to the 2004 and 2008 controlled-flood experiments, 

and ultimately to the DOI-approved 2012-2020 High Flow Protocol. Wright and others (WRR, 

2010) describes the method we developed for modeling shifting sand rating curves in rivers 

where changes in the upstream sand supply partially regulate transport (Rubin and others, 2001, 

2008; Topping and others, 2007, 2010). This shifting-rating-curve approach is used in 

combination with the data collected by Project 2 in the implementation of both the High Flow 

Protocol and in the LTEMP EIS. The most recent example of a publication from Project 2 that 

has had impact on the GCDAMP is Voichick and Wright (2014) where we show that turbidity in 

the pre-dam river greatly exceeded that in the modern river and never got as low as it does in the 

modern river. 

In addition to having a good publication record with high impact, Project 2 has a history of 

being responsive to managers. The DFCs that were DOI-approved in 2012 require ongoing 

monitoring of stage, discharge, water temperature, sediment transport, turbidity, and dissolved 

oxygen. Because all of these parameters evolve through the CRe as dam releases move 
downstream through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons and interact with local conditions, 

monitoring these parameters is required at more than one location along the CRe to adequately 

evaluate whether the DFCs are being met. 

The “60-minute duration” part of this comment makes little sense. As is stated in the 

proposal “Collection of data at the 15-minute temporal resolution is required to accurately 

describe the changes in stage, discharge, water quality, and sediment transport in the CRe that 

have been documented to occur at intervals << 1 hour (for example, Topping and others, 2000b; 

Voichick, 2008; Voichick and Topping, 2010a). Months to years of data collected at this 

resolution easily fit on standard dataloggers, result in no additional processing time in the office, 

and result in no additional financial cost to the project. In addition, because random error is 

reduced as 1 n , data collection at >>15-minute intervals would not only hamper detection of 

systematic changes in stage, discharge, water quality, and sediment transport, but would 

substantially increase the error in the measurements provided by this project.” In essence, 

collecting data at 60-minute intervals instead of 15-minute intervals not only would NOT change 

the cost of the project but would actually greatly increase the error in the measurements made by 

Project 2. 

Finally, “how data collected by Project 2 are used in the High Flow Protocol” is well 

described in both the 2011 HFE EA and the 2012 High Flow Protocol documents approved by 

DOI. 

Comment: "The website is a great concept, though it took several minutes to create a figure of 

just 6 years of data (even requested in the early AM when server demand would be low). That 

suggests that the server is badly underpowered or overtaxed, and/or that the coding is far from 

optimized (e.g. using default bias settings, as most users would, should allow instantaneous 

generation of graphs because all values can be pre-calculated). The duration curve will indeed 

be a welcome addition, though the proposal makes it sound like a major technological feat when 

in fact every aspect of presenting such a graphic and allowing user-defined calculations is very 

easy to code and serve." 

Response: While the functionality offered to the public/users of the GCMRC application may 

appear to be simplistic to the naked eye, the front end application is actually powered by a very 

sophisticated set of tools dynamically producing graphs of data that are refreshed multiple times 

per day to include the most recent and authoritative calculations. The backend database 

supporting the application contains 57 sites and their data represents more than 86.3 million 

timeseries measurements and values as well as their metadata. In addition to these timeseries 

data, the database and web application serve up over 100,000 records representing physical 

samples also available through the application. 

The server is neither underpowered nor overtaxed. The application resides on infrastructure 

in the EROS Data Center which provides ample network, processing and storage resources. The 

application benefits from sharing resources with many other successful USGS applications by 

being overseen by a group of professional System Administrators with expertise in providing 

stable infrastructure for web applications. 

Your example taking minutes to provide six years of data is not an indication of an overtaxed 

system, but a system intended to be user-interactive. The browser requires all the data in separate 

pieces to allow the user to adjust percentages in real-time. That usually turns out to be five 15-

minute timeseries that need to be transferred to the browser, which would turn out to be roughly 
a million values in your specific six year example. However, in order to accommodate the 

spectrum of browser memory capacities and connection speeds, we filter the data to windowed 

local mins and maxes on requests of periods that long. The amount of values that make it to your 

browser for that example turns out to be closer to a couple hundred thousand. Your example was 

for six years but the application needs to be able to accommodate any request whether it be for a 

day or over 90 years. Because we attempt to serve the truest visual representation of the data, we 

scale the windowed filtering based on the amount of data the user requests. 

 

Comment: “As noted in the introduction to this project, the data collected are used for a number 

of other investigations, including those related to socio-cultural resources (p. 55). This project 

would benefit from integration of archaeologically and culturally significant sites. It isn’t clear 

how the important information that is being collected and will be collected is actually being used 

or could be used to monitor the impacts on cultural resources in the CRe. Thus, while it is stated 

that “Collaborations also exist between this project and every other funded physical-sciences and 

biology project at the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, mostly in a supporting 

role, and with researchers in academia” (p. 61) no mention is made of collaborations with 

archaeologists, or that the locations and physical attributes of archaeological sites are in any way 

being looked at as part of their work with the USGS Center for Integrated Data Analytics 

(CIDA). If it is, it should be mentioned how and what the results have been.” 

Response: Project 2 has a good history of working with archeologists in Grand Canyon. The 

following publications in the scientific literature provide documentation that this collaboration 

has occurred and illustrate how this collaboration has benefited archeologists. 

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 

p. 

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2005, 

Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower Comanche, and Arroyo Grande 

areas of the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5072, 68 p. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2007, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 19 p. 

Draut, A. E., Rubin, D. M., Dierker, J. L., Fairley, H. C., Griffiths, R. E., Hazel, J. E. Jr., Hunter, 

R. E., Kohl, K., Leap, L. M., Nials, F. L., Topping, D. J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application 

of sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeology in the Colorado River corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: Geomorphology, v. 101, n. 3, p. 497-509, doi: 

10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032. 

Knowledge of river stage during flood events and flood or stage frequency is fundamental 

to the interpretation of archaeological sites in the CRe. Project 2 measures both stage and 

discharge in the modern river, and has processed historical unit-values of these parameters and 

made them generally available (for the first time) through 
http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/stations/GCDAMP. In addition, Project 2 has 

published the stages and discharges associated with the largest known floods to have occurred in 

the CRe over the last several thousand years in Topping and others (2003). 

These four papers together allow archeologists to determine the history of inundation in 

various parts of the CRe where archeological sites occur. For example, the driftwood surveys in 

Draut and others (2005) in combination with the flood frequency analyses in Topping an others 

(2003) allow inundation frequencies (and thus sediment deposition frequencies) to be determined 

for the large floods that have occurred over the last several thousand years. Some of these 

largest floods resulted in the burial of archeological sites (for example, on river left downstream 

from Tanner Rapid and the ruin on river right upstream from Bright Angel Creek). 

Project 3. Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: 

Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, 

and Ecosystem Scales 

July 29, 2014 

Project 3 Reviewer Response 

These comments include all of the text in the specific review of Project 3 by the science advisors. 

The text was broken out into individual comments of similar substance, and the associated 

responses follow immediately. 

 

Comment: This project has significant focus on the impacts of HFEs and intervening flows on 

riverine sediment abundance, movement, and storage. It also has focus on sandbar development 

and maintenance in the system, and modeling of sandbars in the system. It continues to address 

through both monitoring and research one of the most critical questions of the AMP, i.e., can 

appropriately managed high flow events and other required flows through time provide general 

stability to the number, location, and size of sandbars in the system. The program also provides 

critically needed inputs to understand flow regime impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats. 

Extensive funding is proposed for 2015/16 to evaluate differing data recovery methods and data 

quality to assess sediment and sandbar conditions. It is difficult to determine explicitly from the 

write-ups if duplicated effort exists. Most of this project effort, approximately $1.2M is directed 

at providing definitive assessments of the status of sediment and sandbar resources through 

multiple approaches. It was unclear whether the increased effort to gather higher resolution data 

will truly be more informative. Again the question addressed above might be posed. Would less 

data resolution serve managers well and also save costs? 

Response: As shown in Grams and others (2013), morphologic sediment budgets that use a subsampling scheme (channel cross sections at specified intervals) can be subject to large errors. 

Thus we propose that higher resolution data are necessary to appropriately assess sand resources 

canyon-wide. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail in the revised proposal, only full 

bathymetric and topographic maps of long reaches provide long-term assessments of sediment 

budgets over multi-year to decadal timescales. Part of the work proposed in Project 3, now 
elaborated on in a new section D.1 describing the monitoring strategy, includes an assessment of 

how the different project elements will be used in a tiered monitoring approach. Part of the 

impetus to collect higher resolution, and more spatially exhaustive data sets, is to assess the 

degree to which different subsampling schemes are or are not representative of the wider system 

behavior. In the revision, we have outlined how each new data set will be incorporated into the 

analysis and evaluation of existing data in line with management objectives. The efforts of 

Project 3 are collaborative, and thus there is overlap between some project goals, but not 

duplicative, in that each element will provide a complimentary piece of the tiered monitoring 

strategy. 

Comment: Objective 3 proposes to utilize some of these data to develop and refine a model to 

predict sandbar development and variance in the system and how that variance is linked to 

operations management, including normal operations as well as event flows such as HFEs. 

Development and testing is to occur through the 2015-17 period at approximately $100 K per 

year. It is not made clear how this modeling effort will integrate in overall AMP and EIS 

program accomplishments, including Argonne’s sandbar modeling efforts in the LTEMP. The 

two modeling approaches use different methods but seem to be addressing similar if not the same 

questions. Although costly, this modeling project is addressing one of the most critical problems 

in the AMP. If in fact duplication exists by design it could be useful in moving more quickly to 

more effective monitoring methods and improved modeling in the three-year period. In total over 

$0.3 million may be expended in three years in this modeling effort, which seems cost effective 

if successful. Results from Project 3 should also provide useful information on the distribution 

and size of camping beaches, an important element in visitor satisfaction. On the surface it 

appears that parts of projects 2 and 3 could be integrated to reduce costs, and yet each project 

element provides critical elements to overall goals and objectives. Further, assessment of costs 

for each element does not reveal excessive expenditure. However, this should not preclude a 

closer look at potential cost savings from integration. 

Response: We are collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation, specifically David Varyu, on 

refinement of the LTEMP sandbar modeling effort. We intend to pursue refinements of the 

original model, as well as alternative modeling approaches such as re-application of the Wiele 

model. Multiple modeling approaches are required because they deal with different scales, 

different spatial and temporal resolutions, and different aspects of the physical processes 

contributing to the variances seen in the data. A deeper understanding at multiple scales is 

required to most effectively tackle the complex problem of being able to predict sandbar 

behavior. Projects 2 and 3 are complimentary, but integrating these projects would not affect the 

program budget or outcomes. On the comment about the distribution and size of camping 

beaches, as stated in Project Element 3.1.1., the collection and analysis of sandbar campsite data 

will continue. 

Comment: There were several more detailed issues that merit consideration. Element 3.1 

focuses on sandbar dynamics, but seemed to treat each potential influence as being independent 

of others. An ‘experimental design’ perspective might be more informative, wherein sandbar 

growth and loss rates can be envisioned as integrating the effects of location in the river, bar 

configuration, local currents and sand inputs, event characteristics (HFEs, etc.), and interaction 

among these factors. Such an integrative way of thinking would be more powerful than treating 
each as an independent predictor. The work could then merge bathymetric and topographic 

perspectives by testing the spatial association between riverbed dynamics and sandbar dynamics. 

This merger would align with the overall geohydrological approach: is sand transport a local or 

long-distance phenomenon, and how does that scale with event size? By determining the scale at 

which sand exchange between bed and bar occurs, it would be easier to reconcile the 

interpretation of data from individual sandbars with the large-scale flux view of mass balance 

between tributary inputs and reservoir sink. 

Response: Integrating data sources that include observations over different time scales is the 

subject of the modeling project element (3.3). Many of these suggestions are worth exploring, 

but are quite complicated, and require a detailed understanding of individual processes of flow 

and sediment transport from the grain-scale to the reach-scale. The effect of “local currents” and 

channel configuration is exactly what we are working on understanding in element 3.3 when we 

discuss the effects of local hydraulics on bar size and morphology. We tried to present 

complimentary questions in each project element that addresses some aspect of the overarching 

problem, but we certainly acknowledge that these factors are integrative; for example, in addition 

to project 3.3, the channel mapping project 3.2 is explicit in linking bathymetric and topographic 

data with measurements of sediment mass balance from Project 2. 

Comment: More generally, it was striking that no work was proposed on climate or other 

controls on sand loading from tributaries, or delivery of sand to the downstream reservoir. Those 

topics seem the logical way to tackle the sustainability context raised repeatedly in the 

background section. 

Response: It has not been convincingly demonstrated, using the historical record, that climate 

changes have in the past significantly altered the net sediment delivery to the entire mainstem. 

The emerging science of trying to predict sand delivery resulting from monsoons under various 

scenarios of climate change is not yet sufficiently mature to provide reliable insight such that we 

could readily incorporate it into our work on sandbar dynamics and channel storage. Project 2 is 

concerned with measuring sand flux in the mainstem and in tributaries. Sand transport into Lake 

Mead (transport past Diamond Creek) is also in Project 2. Until the foreseeable future, 

monitoring these fluxes into and out of the mainstem is the state of the art, in lieu of better and 

more consensual climate predictions. 

Comment: Figure 8 is fascinating, and prompts the question of whether it is coincidence that the 

one site where high-resolution data indicates major reductions in sand bar elevation is also the 

site where the validation of the RS approach is also very weak? It seems this could indicate that 

the RS approach works well for growing sandbars but poorly for shrinking ones. That has 

important direct implications, but could also point the way toward methodological refinements 

that enable better estimation of flattening sandbars using RS. The SFM approach is a nice 

addition as a high-risk, high-reward element, and it was good to see the precision will be 

quantified to pave the way for citizen science implementation. But why does the methods 

comparisons focus on down-sampled data to make high-res methods comparable in sample 

density to low-res methods, when the more salient comparisons would be comparing the goldstandard (LIDAR) to SFM and total-station without any down sampling? It seems the key aim is 

knowing how well each can perform in an absolute sense, which dictates which constitutes the 
minimum acceptable effort to achieve adequate accuracy. Similarly, under element 3.2, why not 

validate using new aerial imagery that could be directly compared the 3 methods proposed in the 

previous element (SFM approach). I understand that value of the historical perspective, but 

comparing against multiple methods in the present would provide richer validation and methods 

development possibilities. 

Response: Sandbars are likely to increase in area above 8,000 cfs as they grow, and sandbars are 

likely to decrease in area above 8,000 cfs as they shrink. We can't detect sandbar area or 

elevation below 8,000 cfs in the remote sensing data, and because of the finite pixel resolution of 

the data we probably estimate larger areas (and elevations) above 8,000 cfs with greater certainty 

compared to very small areas above 8,000 cfs. This might result in the possibility suggested by 

the reviewer that the remote sensing approach works well for growing sandbars but poorly for 

shrinking ones. We would need to investigate this possibility for sandbar area and sandbar 

elevation and topography more thoroughly with a larger sample of growing and shrinking 

sandbars, however. The project does include assessments of “absolute” accuracy by comparison 

with LIDAR at a few sites. But the objective is sandbar monitoring, which does not require that 

level of resolution. We need to compare the SFM data with our regular monitoring data. A 

significant problem with any of the modern high-tech methods is “too much data.” We have a 

monitoring data set that goes back to 1990 and we need to test the SFM data against those data. 

Modern imagery is completely different than the type of imagery used in the historical analysis. 

The purpose of the validation is to use the method on photos of similar quality to the 1984 

photos, but for which we have independent measurements of the ground surface. 

Comment: As the ‘long-reach’ approach is discussed (p103), does the failure of the three smallscale sampling strategies to yield the larger-scale mass balance simply suggest that the wrong 

predictors are being used in sample site stratification? Apparently it is not enough to focus on 

large eddies, but it is not clear that the team has fully mined the 2000-2004 data by comparing 

depth changes to other mapped characteristics (depth, flow velocity and vectors, proximity to 

bars, nearest upstream or downstream riffle, etc.). It seems there must be some way to predict 

which places are most dynamic if the old data are mined more fully? 

Response: At some level, yes. Identifying the “correct” stratification is a major goal of this 

program. Much of the 2000-2004 data has been mined as suggested, but few if any relationships 

have been uncovered. Part of the goal of FY15-17 research is to better assess subsampling 

approaches, and the modeling project (3.3) will attempt to determine if different mapped 

characteristics can be correlated with different sandbar behaviors. Over long timescales, longreach repeat channel mapping efforts are the most reliable (least error) indicators of sediment 

mass balance and changes in fine sediment storage. 

Comment: Also, it was surprising that hyporheic issues were not mentioned. Perhaps some 

hydrological tracers of hyporheic exchange would help to predict locations where bed thickness 

is likely to be dynamic (by virtue of reflecting both substrate characteristics and hydraulic 

forcing). With regard to sonar application (p105), similar efforts are underway even with singlebeam sonar in lake environments-- see lakemap.com for details. They use a standard Lowrance 

echo-sounder and can resolve macrophytes and hard vs soft substrates. To validate your 

methods (p107), will you collect grab samples of surface sediments and plant material. That is 
important since you are expanding the spatial scale of surveys enormously, and the identification 

of bryophytes and chlorophytes seems like a reach. 

Response: Previous coring efforts have shown that in general, sediment accumulations are not 

thick (<5m). Also, while some pre dam sediment contacts have been found, indicating a lack of 

bed dynamism, in most areas we predict that the layer of the bed exchanging with the flow is 

large and non-uniformally accreting or eroding. Measuring hyporheic exchanges is an interesting 

idea, however it would be extremely spatially limited. Acoustics are much more suited to 

mapping bed thicknesses continuously and at high resolution. Given observed heterogeneity in 

bed sediments and thickness, this is important. Single beam echo-sounders can be used to map 

vegetation and substrate type, but multibeam sounders do it better (they are typically higher 

frequency and soundings are more precise) and with greater coverage and resolution. Since we 

already use multibeam to map the channel, it makes more sense to use that technology for 

acoustic classifications. In the revision we state that bed and vegetation samples will be 

collected in association with any aquatic vegetation mapping efforts. 

Comment: Finally, a few statistical comments. The test of predictors of sand bar change (p118) 

is a perfect application for boosted regression trees, which deal nicely with non-linear predictions 

and complex interactions. They also offer the capacity to predict unstudied areas from the suite 

of descriptors, though that is more complex than with multiple regression or other basic 

parametric approaches because there is no singular predictive equation. 

Response: Given the unequal time intervals between sand bar measurements and that we are 

repeatedly measuring the same bars, BR is not an appropriate statistical technique. 

Comment: The idea of grouping sites is unlikely to be informative because groupings result in: 

a) reduced statistical power to detect and estimate influence of a particular predictor, b) losing 

the capacity to use small deviations in multiple predictors among broadly similar sites to inform 

fitting of each predictor (i.e. groups will still have modest heterogeneity, but that information is 

discarded in fitting), and c) lower large-scale predictive power over treating sites individually. In 

any case, that empirical descriptive statistical approach will be a nice complement to the 

mechanistic LES modeling approach. 

Response: This is a valid comment and one that we will consider in project execution. We 

recognize that any successful approach based on grouping would have to demonstrate that it 

captures more variability in the data than a non-grouping approach. Analysis of individual 

sandbar response would be a necessary first step in terms of grouping. Any successful approach 

based on grouping would have to demonstrate that it captures more variability in the data than a 

non-grouping approach. Using a simple multiple regression or principal components approach 

we could ascertain the variance in sandbar metric associated with each forcing variable. Also, 

part of the purpose of the groupings is to provide topographic test-cases for the LES modeling, 

so we want to know if we can stratify the generalized response (in the groupings) based on 

measured differences in topography that can then get fed into the LES model to elucidate real 

flow and sediment transport processes.
Comment: It is also admirable that the team will establish a control network to ensure 

consistent elevational standards for application to all types of data being collected for this and 

other Projects, but most readers would benefit from clear presentation of some what-if scenarios. 

How badly would the research mission be compromised if the control network did not exist 

(since it currently doesn't)? For instance, what would the consequences be of not having the RS 

and field observations of sand bar height on the same precise elevational benchmark? 

Response: We are not proposing to establish a control network: it does currently exist. This 

project involves maintaining and improving the network with additional observations. 

Comment: According to the plan, the project has three research components, but as with Project 

2, none of these explicitly addresses the integration of archaeological resources into the models. 

Nor do the “key monitoring and research questions addressed in this project” (pp. 81-82) 

specifically mention archaeological sites. Nonetheless, this is an important project and the 

monitoring portion could be extremely valuable for assessing impacts on archaeological sites, 

assuming that areas that are targeted for repeat photography, remote sensing, etc., are areas with 

archaeological sites or other culturally significant areas. However, there isn’t anything in the 

plan that states that the sampling strategy included consideration of archaeological sites and/or 

culturally significant areas. Many of the cultural resources may not be directly affected by this 

specific project because they are above the elevations being studied, but if they are in areas that 

overlap with sandbar areas and could be included in the studies then they should be explicitly 

part of the sampling design. The plan mentions that there is “a pressing need to develop a 

representative sandbar sampling design” (p. 97), so now would be the time to add areas with 

archaeological sites to the areas being sampled. The subproject (Project Element 3.5) to support 

the geodesic control network has important contributions to make to archaeological site 

monitoring as well as other research projects. 

Response: The sandbar and in-channel sediment storage monitoring and the 

cultural/archeological site monitoring are treated separately because they occur in distinct 

locations and are affected by distinct processes. Sandbars are directly affected by daily flow 

regime, sediment inputs, and high flows. The cultural sites are in pre-dam deposits that are not 

inundated by normal dam operations or high flows. They are affected by hillslope processes and 

aeolian processes. We do now propose to integrate LiDAR based monitoring of cultural sites 

with the SfM project of rapid sandbar surveys, to better integrate these technologies across 

projects. 

 
Project 4. Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope 

continuum: quantifying the relative importance of riverrelated factors that influence upland geomorphology and 

archaeological site stability 

CRAHG Recommendations Prepared by Kurt Dongoske, CRAHG Chair 

Project 4 Response Prepared by Joel B. Sankey, Research Geologist, GCMRC 

Comment: The CRAHG supports GCMRC’s project 4, including Reclamation’s funding 

support, as a research effort to address the science questions being asked. However, project 4 

does not meet Reclamation’s full §106 compliance responsibilities as defined in the existing 

programmatic agreement. Specifically, project 4 does not adequately address Reclamation’s 

monitoring responsibilities or the involvement of the participating Tribes in the development of a 

new monitoring plan. The Tribal involvement in the development of the monitoring plan 

associated with project 4 is not discussed and there are no provisions for funding meaningful 

Tribal participation in the development of the monitoring plan. 

Response: We appreciate the CRAHG’s support of the research we have proposed in project 4 

(element 4.1). The perceived shortcoming of the lack of tribal involvement in the development of 

the monitoring plan (element 4.2) proposed for FY15 has been addressed in response to these 

comments. BOR has provided an additional $30,000 to the budget for element 4.2 to be used 

specifically to fund tribal participation in making recommendations for, and reviewing, the 

monitoring plan that will be developed in 2015. 

GRCA Cultural Resources Comments on BOR/GCMRC Workplan 

Response to comments on project 4 proposal prepared by Joel B. Sankey, Research 

Geologist, GCMRC 

Desired future conditions for cultural sites: In our minds, this is the basis for the work under 

Project 4: 

“The DFC specifically proposes that achievement of the goals for cultural resources be measured 

by: 

Erosion or deposition rates of substrates in which cultural sites occur.” 

and 

“Impacts at sites that affect eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.” 

Comment: Page 148: “...and to demonstrate progress towards achieving federally-mandated 

goals for historic preservation under the Government Performance and Results Act. The NPS 

monitoring program also identified sites that may require excavation or other forms of 

“treatment” to preserve their cultural, historic, and scientific values.” 
We ask that you strike the reference to the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA). The Grand Canyon Cultural Resource Program has developed monitoring protocols 

(Dierker 2011) and mitigation protocols (Dierker in draft) that guide monitoring and treatment 

activities in the park. Those protocols, which have been peer-reviewed, supersede and improve 

monitoring efforts as prescribed under the Archeological Sites Information System (ASMIS), not 

GPRA. GPRA is only an accounting (literally counts and percentages) of the number of 

archaeological sites that are in good, fair, or poor condition. There are no criteria under GPRA 

that defines condition status, no listing of disturbance mechanisms, and no treatment options. It 

is not what we use, or what we have ever used. The reference to a personal communications with 

E. Brennan in 2011 on this subject is clearly a misunderstanding. 

Response: We appreciate these comments and have revised this section of the proposal as 

recommended by GRCA. We have removed the reference to GPRA, revised the previous text, 

and added the following statements to the revised proposal: “The current NPS monitoring 

approach, which was developed by the Grand Canyon Cultural Resource Program in 2011 

(Dierker and Brennan, 2011), has peer-reviewed monitoring protocols and mitigation protocols 

that guide monitoring and treatment activities in the park. The current NPS protocols supersede 

and improve monitoring efforts as prescribed under the Archeological Sites Information System 

(ASMIS).” 

Comment: Page 149: Regarding monitoring programs: We feel it is imperative to link 

monitoring activities to mitigation actions. The key purpose of the monitoring program, in our 

view, is to track resource condition, identify disturbance mechanisms, implement strategies, i.e., 

mitigations, to reduce adverse effects resulting from disturbance mechanisms, and evaluate the 

efficacy of treatment actions. There may be a tendency to describe research as monitoring. 

Response: We appreciate that the GRCA has provided us with these and subsequent specific 

comments and suggestions regarding the purpose and protocol for the proposed monitoring 

program. In response to this and subsequent comments we have revised the proposal to include, 

and cite GRCA as the source of, these specific recommendations just as we did for the 

recommendations of BOR in the draft proposal. Please see our responses throughout this 

document that state “GRCA comment added to the revised proposal”. Please see the 

recommendations for the monitoring plan from NPS Cultural Resources in the Project element 

4.2 section of the revised proposal. 

Comment: There are valid reasons to conduct research. Research will help inform us about the 

mechanisms of change and to develop and test hypotheses. These activities may affect treatment 

options or dam operations. 

Response: We appreciate this statement of support from GRCA for the work we have proposed 

in the research element (4.1) of this proposal 

Comment: Page 150: “A high-quality monitoring program..” What makes a monitoring program 

high quality? Expensive equipment, new technologies, consistently trained crews who repeat 

efforts year after year? A definition would help articulate expectations. 
Response: We agree with this comment. We have concluded that our use of the term “highquality” is not useful for more clearly defining or describing the nature of a monitoring program, 

and have deleted “high-quality” from the revised proposal. We now simply refer to “A 

monitoring program”. Please see changes in revised proposal. 

Comment: Page 152: Drafting a monitoring plan will definitely require close cooperation to 

negotiate issues related to requirements, management recommendations, and agency mission for 

example. We feel we need more information to develop the site sample, the time frame for 

monitoring sites, the variables that will be observed/collected and other specifics. It is imperative 

that a monitoring program be easily replicated and provide information to allow management 

decisions and treatments by the management entity. 

Response: GRCA comment added to the revised proposal 

Comment: Page 154: Evaluation of the proposed work plan would really benefit from review of 

aeolian sand maps generated from the 13-14 field activities. If those are available, we would very 

much appreciate seeing them. 

Response: We have provided examples of these maps to BOR and NPS via the GCMRC Center 

Director, and at the discretion of these entities, we (project J and 4 scientists) would be happy to 

provide the entire dataset directly to GRCA Cultural Resources. 

Comment: Page 155: We recommend adding a budget item to support NPS staff time to pull and 

scan photographs in our collections for the proposed analysis. Also note that currently, 

photographs from the work by Dr. Schwartz are currently housed at the School of Advanced 

Research. Photographs from Dr. Euler’s work are housed at the Grand Canyon archaeological 

site files and museum collections. 

Response: We appreciate that GRCA has alerted us to the fact that this work we proposed will 

necessitate an extra effort from NPS. Helen Fairley has offered to pull and scan photographs 

herself for the work proposed in sub-element 4.1.2 if the NPS would provide her access to the 

facilities and a small workspace for a short period of time. In return, we would be pleased to 

provide GRCA with copies of the scanned images that could potentially be used for other 

purposes by the park in the future. 

Comment: Page 157: Will other stakeholder comments be included in the document or just BOR 

comments? 

Response: Indeed! We appreciate these specific comments from GRCA regarding the proposed 

monitoring program and have revised the proposal to include them. We cite GRCA as the source 

of these recommendations just as we did for the recommendations of BOR in the draft proposal. 

Again, please see our responses throughout this document that state “Comment presented and 

attributed to GRCA in the revised Project 4 proposal” 

 
Comment: Page 157: “Focus on sites that would benefit from HFE sand (types 1 and 2a, maybe 

2b and 2c);” 

We believe that a full understanding of effects is necessary properly manage and mitigate 

adverse effects from dam operation, not just those that have beneficial effects. Reports by 

Sankey and East (2014) and East (2014) suggests that deposition and erosion can change through 

time, even at Type 1 sites. 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “For those sites identified in #1, describe a method to determine which 

sites could receive enough sand to make a difference e.g. the HFE sand bar is large enough, the 

vegetation barrier is not too dense or the topographic barrier is not too large” 

We are not sure this direction is practicable as written. Does the comment really mean, describe a 

method to determine which sites could receive enough sand to stabilize them in-situ. Determine 

what HFE sand bar size is large enough, what density of vegetation is not too dense, and what 

topographic barrier is not too high to facilitate movement of sand to archaeological sites at a 

volume that will stabilize them in-situ. 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Reports by Sankey and East (2014) and East (2014) suggests that deposition and 

erosion can change through time, even at Type 1 sites and we need to recognize that “type” may 

change over time given changing field conditions. 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “Define how much sand is needed to benefit a site that is eroding (this 

may be part of the methodology); “ 

 We believe the answer to this question is going to be different for every site because it will 

relate to site type and features present, local topography and weather. 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “Include criteria to determine where to focus the monitoring effort on such 

sites (gullies?);” 

We believe monitoring activities have to look at an archaeological site within the landscape area 

where it exists. Tribes do not think of archaeological sites as only the physical manifestations of 

the past but the areas within which the sites are located. Perhaps something else is intended by 

the comment. 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “Include the number of sites and schedule/interval of monitoring events 

that would be statistically significant;” 
We may be misunderstanding the context of this statement. We know what the number of sites 

present in the APE. The sample should be based on geomorphic context and the potential for 

indirect effects (both adverse and beneficial). 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “State criteria to be used in the evaluation of effectiveness that the HFE 

sand is making a difference for site erosion/stability;” 

We think this statement may mean “State how you will quantify beneficial effects from HFE 

sand in making sites more stable. State how you will quantify adverse effects from HFE sand and 

site erosion.” 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “State criteria to determine if covering the site with HFE sand would be an 

adverse effect by changing the site’s setting;” “State criteria to determine any other negative 

(adverse) effects from HFE sand on or across sites; “ 

We believe these are complex questions that can’t be answered without tribal involvement and 

SHPO concurrence. We think it will depend on the type of site and how that site continues to be 

used by the traditionally associated tribes of the Grand Canyon (or Glen Canyon). The question 

really needs to address integrity of setting; the Colorado River setting has not changed, nor has 

the location of the archaeological sites. Evaluation of the aspects of integrity was performed a 

number of years ago and it might be worthwhile to incorporate previous evaluations into the 

component suggested in this project element. 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “Precisely define all monitoring attributes that will be used (e.g. how will 

you use lidar?);” 

We think the word “attributes” is referring to “methods” if the discussion is about field activities. 

If the discussion refers to analysis then the word for “attributes” might be “data.” 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 

Comment: Page 158: “How you will determine if the archaeological assemblage is in situ or has 

been lowered to an erosional surface (mixing of components);” 

We are not sure about what is intended here. In-situ deposits can be mixed chronologically as a 

result of site use from multiple occupations. Sheetwash would be evidence of movement. In any 

case archaeological sites are recorded in situ and monitoring information would indicate if creep 

and sheetwash are currently moving artifacts or features in the site context. We can’t think of any 

archaeological sites that have been moved and whole redeposited elsewhere. If it were to occur, 

it would be obvious in the geomorphic context of the site. There would be no uniformity or 

human agency in the archeological deposits present in such cases. We are not sure this statement 

is relevant. 

Response: GRCA comment added to revised proposal 
Comment: Page 162: Deliverables 

We would like to see an annual report, given to all participants that reports on the progress of the 

project, includes maps and graphics of findings to date, 

Response: We agree with the recommendation that annual reports be included as deliverables 

and have included this in the revised proposal. Please see changes in the Deliverables section of 

the revised proposal. 

Overall Project Comments: 

Comment: We think there have been useful findings from efforts to understand aeolian transport 

and archaeological site stability. We think more work is needed to begin to answer some specific 

questions and conduct hypothesis testing. 

Response: We appreciate these comments that are supportive and positive about our work todate. We are also appreciative of this and other implicit statements of support from GRCA for 

the research we are currently doing, and we are proposing to test hypotheses that focus on 

improving understanding of how archaeological sites are linked to modern river processes. 

Comment: We see beneficial effects from the use of lidar related directly to activities 

undertaken under Project J, specifically, using lidar to ascertain whether aeolian sand has been 

deposited on a site and has caused volumetric inflation of the ground surface and to determine 

how limited sand replenishment potential of a sandbar is for any given downwind landscapes. A 

well thought-out protocol and implementation plan including lidar may be the tool for 

documenting change such as overall deflation at a site that appears unchanged to the naked eye. 

Response: We appreciate and agree with these comments. In the science background and project 

4.2 element text of the proposal we attempted to concisely summarize the work that has been 

completed with lidar in the past decade to illustrate that it has generated a dataset that provides 

insight into the linkages between modern river processes and archaeological sites. 

Project 4 Response to June 29, 2014 letter from L.D. Garrett (Executive Coordinator, 

Science Advisors) to Jack Schmidt (Chief, GCMRC) regarding “Comments on Science 

Advisors Review and Recommendations on 2015-17 Science Plan” 

Project 4 Response Prepared by 

Joel B. Sankey, Research Geologist, GCMRC 

Comment: I appreciated our discussions at the TWG meeting. You requested I go over our 

review and recommendations and provide input to you and your staff on what we consider the 

five most critical areas for you to address in this plan. We have accomplished that task in the 

following text. However, we hope that your scientists will review all of our comments, because 

we believe they could assist the scientists in improving research methods, planned assessments, 

etc., in several areas. 
The five areas we address are cast in general statements, because we have provided 

considerable detailed input on these issues in our general and specific comments and 

recommendations on the plan. Only one comment requests a major rewrite of project 

descriptions i.e. 4 and 12. Simply put, the projects mentioned do not present appropriate science 

standards in defining objectives, methods, assessment approach etc., and should be rewritten. 

The remaining four comments relate to what we feel are critical needs to insure future program 

stability and responsiveness. 

Comment: In regards to past GCMRC plans that we have reviewed, this is clearly the most 

professional presentation of science projects. Of the project presentations, there are only two 

which we feel should be rewritten before you resubmit the Plan. The science ideals are 

supported by the SAs, but unfortunately Projects 4 and 12 simply do not demonstrate appropriate 

science standards in defining and justifying the science approach, presenting appropriate science 

design, and clarifying data development and assessments. Because of these issues some concern 

exists if expenditure of funds might best be directed at other cultural management needs or to 

other science projects. 

Response: We appreciate the review provided by science advisors of project 4. Please see the 

remainder of this document which contains our detailed response to their specific review 

comments. We have revised the proposal for project 4 in response to specific science advisors 

comments, as well as a review provided by the GRCA Cultural Resources, and written 

recommendations from the CRAHG. 

Project 4 Response to Review of Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Triennial Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2015-2017 

Review Prepared by 

David Garrett, Executive Coordinator of Science Advisors, Economics, M3Research 

Lance Gunderson, Adaptive Management & Policy, Emory University 

James Kitchell, Fish Ecology, University of Wisconsin 

John Loomis, Non-Market Economics, Colorado State University 

Peter McIntyre, Riverine Ecology, University of Wisconsin 

Barbara Mills, Anthropology and Archeology, University of Arizona 

Project 4 Response Prepared by 

Joel B. Sankey, Research Geologist, GCMRC 

GENERAL COMMENTS ON TRIENNIAL WORK PLAN 

Comment: An example of significant programs deserving more inclusion is cultural resources. 

They are not mentioned in some of the projects even though justification for data collection 

includes benefits for managing these resources. Projects that collect important time-series data, 

such as Project 3, should explicitly include some areas that are archaeological so that the very 

intensive data collection being done could also be used to benefit management and research of 
cultural resources. And, related to this is reviews. Independent research oversight panels that 

are convened should include cultural resource experts to help to ensure the integration of cultural 

and natural resources in both management and research goals. 

Response: Sankey is leading elements of Projects 3 and 11 that have been carefully designed to 

produce data that will not only be used for those projects but that will be used in the research 

proposed in project element 4.1.1. Specifically, sand bars mapped in the 2013 imagery in project 

3.1.2 and vegetation classified in the 2013 imagery in project 11.1.2 will be used to quantify the 

relationships between aeolian sand, fluvial sandbar sources, and vegetation. In response to 

science advisor comments, the work proposed in project 3 to experiment with the novel and 

potentially more efficient topographic survey approach (“structure from motion”) will be 

expanded to incorporate a proof of concept at two archaeological sites that were most recently 

surveyed with lidar in spring 2014. 

We (the project 4 team) encourage the inclusion of independent review panels for our work. 

A key aspect of our work in FY15 will be to draft a monitoring plan that will be reviewed by all 

stakeholders. It seems appropriate that we seek independent reviews of the draft plan at that time. 

Comment: “A second example are is that the compartmentalization and possible redundancy of 

data collection for individual projects could be easily seen as needing improvement with a more 

systematic program strategy. More collaboration among the scientists to see what data 

collection strategies could be used across projects needs to be done. Many of the same data 

collection techniques will be used across projects and there could be more explicit discussion of 

collaborative methods (e.g., citizen science, remote sensing, LiDAR). There also could be more 

discussion of how research and management goals intersect across projects, not just within each 

project. “ 

Response: Please see the response to the previous comment above that explains the intentional 

integration of remote sensing work in projects 3, 4, and 11 and also the recently revised plan to 

experiment with the “structure from motion” methods at archaeological sites in addition to 

sandbars. 

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE OVERALL TRIENNIAL WORK 

PLAN 

Comment: “Project 4: Project 4 represents one of the main investigations into cultural 

resources during the next three years. The sub-plans to the project each tackle (1) mapping with 

remote sensing techniques areas of “active aeolian sand” and quantitative analyses to understand 

the sources and interactions with other elements such as barriers; and (2) analysis of historical 

photographs to more qualitatively assess landscape change associated with active erosion. The 

latter will result in the preparation of a long-term monitoring plan. 

Response: These initial comments from the science advisors indicate substantial confusion about 

the structure of the project 4 proposal and the work proposed therein. In response, we have 

revised the Project Summary at the outset of the project 4 proposal to more clearly articulate the 

basic outline and structure of the proposal and proposed work. We clarify that project 4 consists 

of two elements. Element 4.1 is research. We present the research proposed in element 4.1 as 3 
sub-elements (2 of which are incorrectly identified by the science advisor in this comment as the 

sub-plans of the entire project). It is not correct that the analysis of historical photographs will 

result in the preparation of a long-term monitoring plan. Element 4.2 is monitoring and we 

specifically state that the first year of the effort will be to draft, and develop the methodology for, 

a monitoring plan that will then be implemented in 2016 and 2017; we have proposed to invest a 

year drafting a monitoring plan in direct response to stakeholders who recommended that we 

adopt this strategy, and we intend to work closely with them throughout the entire process. 

Comment: The proposed components in the plan aim to determine rates of erosion that will 

contribute to the desired goal of preservation in place. So, understanding rates of erosion is 

extremely important for planning purposes, and especially for the Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan. However, we are concerned about effective specification of this project and it 

is difficult to connect directly the science effort in 4.1 and 4.2 to expressed stakeholder needs for 

mitigating impacts from dam operations to archeological sites. 

Response: Based on input from stakeholders that include BOR, NPS, and five tribes, we have 

designed a research element 4.1 that directly focuses on how cultural and archaeological sites are 

linked to modern river processes. The research of 4.1 will therefore directly investigate impacts 

from dam operations to archaeological sites. Based on input from stakeholders that include BOR, 

NPS, and the tribes, we have proposed a monitoring element 4.2 that aims to invest an entire year 

drafting a monitoring plan that focuses on impacts of dam operations to archaeological sites and 

that will benefit from the insights gleaned from our past and future research examining linkages 

between the modern river and archaeological sites. We have worked closely with stakeholders in 

developing this proposal and we propose to continue to do so throughout the life of the project. 

We have added text in the revised proposal to make it clear that stakeholders have weighed in on 

the proposal with respect to their needs and that the development of the monitoring plan during 

2015 (Element 4.2) will be responsive to stakeholder recommendations and will necessarily be 

conducted with stakeholder involvement. Please see edits and clarifying text inserted in the 

Project Summary and Element 4.2 sections of the proposal. 

Comment: Research has been ongoing for multiple years to evaluate the relationship of fluvial 

processes below 45K CFS flows and geomorphic processes above 45K CFS flows. However, 

although establishing association, proofs are lacking to justify full entry into the proposed 

monitoring approach. The projects small sample size should be increased and TCPs added. 

Response: We agree with most of these suggestions and think that we duly identified these issues 

and potential limitations in our proposal. We have proposed a research component (element 4.1) 

specifically because we believe that the work completed to-date on linkages between modern 

river processes and archaeological sites has generated important hypotheses that we are now in a 

great position to test with our existing data. The research proposed in element 4.1 is not limited 

by sample size as we have proposed to conduct the analyses for the entire river corridor and 

therefore all archaeological sites. We have inserted brief text in the Project Element 4.1 section 

of the proposal to emphasize this point. 

We explained in the monitoring element of the proposal 4.2 that the lidar-based monitoring 

that has been completed to-date has been limited by small sample sizes. Yet despite this 

limitation of sample size for the lidar-based monitoring we see that we are potentially close from 
a statistical standpoint to being able to make inference from these measurements to the larger 

population of archaeological sites when we use the site classification system as a framework for 

doing so. We focus on the lidar work to-date and the site classification system in element 4.2 of 

the proposal because we feel that they provide a methodology and framework for future 

monitoring that will focus on how archaeological sites are linked to modern river processes. We 

have also explained, however, that when we draft the monitoring plan in 2015 we will certainly 

consider other methods and recommendations from stakeholders, and promote involvement from 

stakeholders who might like to participate in future monitoring using different tools and 

methodologies. 

Comment: It is not clear that the effort is a priority for Tribes. According to the Triennial Work 

Plan (p. 149), the research project is tied to suggestions in the prior Protocol Evaluation Panel 

(PEP) and addresses Strategic Science Questions (p. 151). A concern is that it is not clear if this 

would be considered the highest priority cultural resources research program to pursue for the 

next three years. 

Response: We have worked closely with stakeholders, including specifically BOR, NPS and the 

tribes, to develop a proposal that we feel is responsive to their individual and collective 

recommendations. Stakeholders can certainly state in more detail whether and to what degree 

this effort is or is not considered a priority. 

Comment: For example, ongoing work involves the classification of archaeological sites in 

terms of the origin of sediments being deposited at archaeological sites, barriers to aeolian 

deposition, and prevailing wind directions. The result is a 5-category classification based on a 

small number of sites and the goal is to expand the number of sites classified (n=13). A larger 

sample is definitely needed and if the project is approved work should continue on this project to 

better understand the multivariate nature of deposition. Understanding why these sites are not 

receiving sufficient sediment deposit to stabilize the sites is a complex process, and variances 

related to assessments are high, at least in part to small sample size. 

Response: We think it is very important that the science advisors understand that the research 

proposed in element 4.1 to better understand the “multivariate nature of deposition” will be 

completed with existing imagery and GIS data that encompass the entire river corridor and is not 

limited by small sample size. We specifically proposed to do the multi-temporal landscape scale 

analyses research of element 4.1.1 because we agree that a large sample size is necessary to 

understand the multivariate nature of deposition. 

In our revision of the Project 4 proposal, we clarify that all river corridor sites (>350 sites) 

have been classified in Marble and Grand Canyon with the 5 class system, not just the 13 site 

where lidar measurements have been made, and that these results will be presented and 

summarized in the final report (currently in preparation) of project j from the 2013 and 2014 

workplan. We have provided a new figure and text in the revised proposal to summarize the most 

current results of the site classification. The classification of all river corridor sites in Grand 

Canyon National Park will be summarized and presented in the “Project J” 2013 and 2014 

biennial workplan final report. Please see revisions in the Scientific Background section of the 

proposal (section C.1) and in the Element 4.2 section of the proposal. 
The lidar monitoring work that has been completed over the past decade has so far only 

included 13 of the river corridor sites that have been classified with the 5 class system. We 

propose to use the classification system as a way to make inference from an unavoidably smaller 

number of sites that are monitored with lidar to the more complete set of river corridor sites. We 

have tried to articulate in element 4.2 of the proposal that despite this limitation of sample size 

for the lidar-based monitoring we see that we are potentially close from a statistical standpoint to 

being able to make inference from these measurements to the larger population of archaeological 

sites when we use the site classification system as a framework for doing so. We also state that in 

2015 when we draft the monitoring plan, we will explore using additional monitoring approaches 

and methods that might allow stakeholders such as the tribes to collect information about a larger 

number of sites. 

It, therefore, may be unwise to launch a monitoring program of these processes in 4.2 at 

significant costs without stronger empirical support for the original stated hypothesis and 

increased sample sizes. 

Response: At the recommendation of stakeholders, we have proposed to invest a year drafting a 

plan to monitor how archaeological sites are linked to, and impacted by, modern river processes. 

In the research element 4.1, we have identified important hypotheses that we believe can be 

tested with existing data. However, we believe that research completed over the past several 

decades has been comprehensive enough to guide the development of an adaptive monitoring 

plan that can focus on the key processes that have been identified to-date as most important 

linkages between the modern river and archaeological sites. 

Comment: As this sample is increased, it needs to include not just archaeological sites but also 

other TCPs. Identification of erosion to other kinds of cultural resources needs to be explicitly 

integrated into the project. This was a recommendation of the PEP report (Doelle 2000) and also 

brought out in the legacy monitoring review committee report by Kintigh and others. 

Response: To a large extent this is a policy issue that is out of our control as scientists. 

Stakeholders including the BOR, NPS and the tribes will need to collectively agree on the 

Programmatic Agreement and Area of Potential Effect to delineate the geographic boundaries 

and identify the collective set of locations at which we will focus our monitoring and research 

efforts. The tribes are currently working with BOR on how to identify their TCPs in Grand 

Canyon, but in the past, they have stated that the entire Grand Canyon from rim-to-rim 

constitutes their TCP interests. Project 4 incorporates a landscape approach in evaluating damrelated impacts and in that sense, it is partially responsive to the TCPs that have been identified 

to date, although we fully recognize that our study does not attempt to explicitly link changes to 

TCP-values. We expect to further refine our monitoring approach to be more responsive to tribal 

concerns through working with the tribes in developing the monitoring plan in FY15. 

Comment: The greatest concerns with the project are: 

 (1) understanding its potential contribution to Tribes or the NPS in assisting mitigation strategies 

for archeological sites affected by dam operations; 
Response: Again, we have worked closely with stakeholders including the BOR, NPS and the 

five tribes to develop a proposal that we feel is responsive to their individual and collective 

recommendations. Stakeholders can certainly state in further detail whether this effort is or is not 

a priority. 

Comment: (2) how the plan objectives will be achieved for all sites given the very small sample 

of sites that are included in 4.1; 

Response: This comment from the science advisors again indicates substantial confusion about 

the structure of the project 4 proposal and the work proposed therein. Project 4.1 is a research 

element that considers the entire river corridor, therefore it also includes all possible river 

corridor archaeological sites within that area. We have inserted text in the Project Element 4.1 

section of the proposal to emphasize this point. 

Comment: (3) how data from the quantitative and qualitative analyses will be integrated; 

Response: It is not clear in this comment to what work the science advisors refer. All of the 

science proposed in project 4 is quantitative in that data will be collected to test hypotheses in a 

statistical framework. Sub-element 4.1.2 is the one portion of the project that is somewhat more 

qualitative, simply due to nature of the data (historical oblique photo matches). The results of 

this work will be naturally integrative with the other research proposed (e.g., 4.1.1) because they 

will provide a longer term perspective on linkages between river processes and archaeological 

sites. 

Comment: (4) how can changing weather patterns affect application of potential results, and 

how could it be mitigated? 

Response: We agree that this is an important question. Unfortunately, most of it is outside the 

scope of our present work. Our focus is to explain how archaeological sites are currently linked 

to modern river processes, and to the extent possible (i.e., based on availability of appropriate 

data) we have proposed to examine how these relationships have changed in recent history. We 

are not at the point where we can forecast into the future how these linkages might respond to 

future perturbations to weather and climate regimes. However, in Project J we are continuing to 

collect weather data at a small sample of sites where detailed measurements of change have been 

made, and these data are currently being applied in landscape evolution models that can help us 

better understand linkages between geomorphic attributes and weather conditions over longer 

time spans. Although additional modeling work is not proposed as part of Project 4 in FY15-17, 

data resulting from the research and monitoring elements of this proposal could potentially be 

used in future modeling efforts, including possibly predictive modeling. However, it is 

noteworthy that if such predictive modeling is undertaken by GCMRC in the future, even among 

the climate-science and atmospheric-science research community it is difficult to make detailed 

predictions for specific time scales and regional spatial scales 

Comment: and (5) LiDAR seems to be an integral part of the project but funding for the 

technology has not been secured (see p. 44). 
Response: We agree with this comment. We are working very hard to identify funding for the 

instrument and personnel to continue lidar surveys in the future. In fact, Sankey recently received 

external funding (from a nonAMP source) to experiment with more affordable and operationally 

autonomous lidar units that might be useful tools of the future (if you are interested in this effort, 

please see http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/ICES/opportunities.html). 

Comment: Many of these issues relate to insufficient science effort in plan specification an 

interaction with Tribes and manager. 

Response: We have worked very closely with stakeholders including the BOR, NPS and tribes to 

draft this proposal and have designed the monitoring element 4.2 to be specifically responsive to 

stakeholders’ suggestion that we spend 2015 drafting a monitoring plan that will focus on how 

cultural and archaeological sites are linked to modern river processes. We have strived to provide 

insight and methodological detail into how the work that has been completed in the last decade 

of the cultural program at GCMRC is relevant to the future monitoring efforts. We have designed 

the research component 4.1 of the proposal to test key hypotheses that exist about linkages 

between the modern river and archaeological sites. Stakeholders can certainly state in further 

detail whether the proposed effort is or is not a priority and we will continue to attempt to make 

the science that we propose responsive to their individual and collective needs. 

Comment: Some of these concerns might be alleviated by inclusion of more detailed 

information in the plan. For example, how many of the total archeological sites that are 

determined to be impacted by flow operations in the canyon have attributes expressed in this 

research? Although not disclosed in the project description, we assume knowledge exists of this 

number and it is a significant percent of the total to support the need for this effort. 

Response: We appreciate this helpful suggestion. We have provided a new figure and text in the 

revised proposal to summarize the most current results of the site classification. We have also 

revised the proposal to clarify that all of the river corridor archaeological sites (>350 sites) in 

Marble and Grand Canyon have been classified and not just the 13 sites at which lidar 

monitoring has been previously conducted. The classification of all river corridor sites will be 

summarized and presented in the “Project J” 2013 and 2014 biennial workplan final report. 

Please see revisions in the Scientific Background section of the proposal (section C.1) and in the 

Element 4.2 section of the proposal . 

Comment: If the entire approach, i.e. hypothesis testing and monitoring protocols, is successful 

how will they assist resource managers—i.e. NPS and the tribes in implementing mitigation 

strategies? Again unless improved science design can be presented, this seems an area where 

funds might better be used to pursue management actions. A goal for the project might best be to 

produce information to help anticipate worst-case scenarios and develop management actions to 

mitigate irreplaceable losses. 

Response: We agree with the science advisors’ articulation of a goal of our project in this 

comment. In fact, this is precisely why we suggest that a monitoring plan (which will be drafted 

in 2015 and implemented in 2016 and 2017) could focus on the site classification system. 

Classifications have been completed for all river corridor sites in Grand Canyon National Park 
and provide us with a ranking of the current and past potential of sites to receive aeolian influx of 

river-derived sand. As the aeolian influx of river-derived sand is a key process by which 

archaeological sites are linked to modern river processes, this classification system provides us 

with a logical framework for identifying best and worst-case scenarios in terms of potential 

impacts of dam operations to archaeological sites. We suggest that results of measurements and 

monitoring conducted at a smaller sample of sites can be used to make inference to the larger 

population of sites based on the classification system. 

Comment: Further documentation of site classification is perhaps helpful, but information on 

specific vulnerabilities and how management could mitigate them seems just as important. 

Response: Work conducted over recent decades has indicated that a key linkage between modern 

river processes and archaeological sites might be that sites that receive more aeolian influx of 

river derived sand are somewhat less vulnerable to the longer term trajectory of degradation via 

hillslope and other erosion processes unrelated to modern river processes. The site classification 

system is critical because it allows us to make inference from observations at a small number of 

sites to the large population of sites throughout the corridor based on their degree of connectivity 

to modern river processes. 

Comment: The use of LiDAR to answer the question of whether NPS use of check dams to 

reduce erosion gullies relative to areas without check dams is a part of the project that would 

follow this reasoning. 

Response: We have suggested in the proposal that this work could consider interactions of 

aeolian sand and checkdams, because this would be an implicit interaction of modern river 

processes and management actions at archeological sites. 

Comment: In principle, this may be an extremely important project to conduct for the cultural 

resources if the methods and models could be implemented. The science presentation is not 

sufficient to produce confidence in these outcomes. 

Response: We appreciate the science advisors’ review but are sorry to read that their 

interpretation is that our proposed science is not sound. We hope that our detailed comments, 

explanations, and revisions alleviate some of the apparent confusion that the science advisors had 

about the structure of the project 4 proposal and the work proposed therein. We think that we 

have proposed research and monitoring elements that incorporate the current state of the science 

and are very responsive to the needs and priorities of stakeholders who have recommended that 

we focus on how archaeological sites are linked to modern river processes. 

SCIENCE ADVISOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

Comment: “ Project 4: The SAs feel this is an important project to consider even though it 

lacks effective science design and the small samples represented in empirical work have not fully 

validated approaches recommended. Several sets of information should appear in a revised 

project to help its full evaluation, including: How will it assist NPS and Tribes site mitigation 
approaches; improving sample size validate approaches; how will qualitative and quantitative 

data be integrated, etc.” 

Response: Please see our detailed comments, explanations, and revisions to the proposal that we 

think will alleviate some of the apparent confusion that the science advisors had about the 

structure of the project 4 proposal and the work proposed therein. We would like to reiterate that 

we believe we have proposed research and monitoring elements that incorporate the current state 

of the science and that are very responsive to the needs and priorities of stakeholders who have 

recommended that we improve the state of knowledge on how archaeological sites are linked to 

modern river processes in the Colorado River ecosystem in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

Project 5. Foodbase Monitoring and Research 

Project 5 Response to Science Advisor Comments 

Prepared by Jeff Muehlbauer and Ted Kennedy, GCMRC 

Comment: “Project 5 has created significant progressive accomplishments in a short time frame. 

New proposals 6.11-17 provide alternative options for laboratory studies, pilots and river 

experiments to initiate and test various hypothesis related to absence/low abundance of EPT. 

However, the science team does not provide strong supporting evidence for several hypothesis. It 

is understood that other southwest tail-waters support EPT, but the GCD environment may be 

sufficiently different to be hostile to these species. Contrasting key attributes of these different 

regimes might be helpful. An argument might be why would anything except small insects with 

rapid life cycles based on filter feeding or collecting use these habitats. A more thorough 

literature search and assessments could produce more focused hypothesis.” 

Response: The science advisors raise valid points here regarding potential differences between 

the GCD tailwater and Grand Canyon and other tailwaters in the Southwest, the need to contrast 

these systems, and the need to characterize the potentially hostile environment downstream of 

GCD for EPT taxa. This is precisely what we had in mind for Project Elements 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 

(“Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions” and “Synthesis of the aquatic 

foodbase in western US tailwaters”, respectively). In 5.1.3, one of our main objectives is to 

describe the life histories, habitat needs, etc. of EPT taxa that could be candidates for 

colonization of the Colorado River downstream of GCD, and to predict how EPT taxa are likely 

to respond to the conditions found in this ecosystem. In 5.1.4, our intent is to synthesize EPT 

(and other aquatic invertebrate) data for tailwaters throughout the Southwest in order to compare 

and contrast these ecosystems, their habitat conditions, and their respective aquatic invertebrate 

densities. The text in both of these sections has been modified to make these objectives clearer. 

COMMENTS FROM TRIANNUAL PLAN REVIEW_6-22-14_V7 WORD DOCUMENT 
Comment: “We were particular impressed with the structure introduced in Project 5, where 

background information included key graphics summarizing existing data, and each element 

included coverage of both the scientific rationale and management implications.” 

Response: We thank the science advisors for their support of this formatting approach, and have 

left it intact.

Comment: “Project 5 presents new program thrusts related to EPT absence/low abundance in 

the Glen Canyon/Marble Canyon reaches; continuation of work on invertebrate drift in the river 

and primary productivity monitoring in the Glen and Marble Canyon reaches. The Colorado 

River below the dam exhibits a remarkable absence and rarity of insect groups found in other 

river systems. This group of investigators face an interesting set of problems owing to 

interactions of variable flow velocities and temperature effects as causes forthe low diversity and 

low productivity observed in the river below the dam. The possible solutions are also complex 

and difficult to test. The issue presents a tough restoration problem. Answers will be importantly 

related to food web interactions. Comparative insectinset drift studies conducted in river reaches 

above Lake Powell and those in the canyon below the dam may offer important insight about 

what is possible vs. what simply won’t work due to life history constraints within the realm of 

current management practices of flow variability and temperature effects. A parsimonious 

outcome may be very helpful in evaluation of management possibilities and priorities. I strongly 

suggest that this is a very worthwhile effort. Management needs to know if and how the 

challenges of evolutionary history can be accommodated and, therefore, what expectations are 

realistic. Developing a bottom-up modeling approach will be helpful in evaluation of the topdown constraints apparent in the productivity of higher trophic levels. Overall, the monitoring of 

invertebrate drift and associated budget is in major part a continuation of needed assessments of 

habitat quality for main-stem native fish and rainbow trout resources. 

Response: We thank the science advisors for their support of this project. We agree that the 

problems described are complex and will be difficult to answer. This is why Project 5 takes a 

multi-faceted approach to addressing this problem, from field studies in Grand Canyon, to lab 

studies, to data syntheses, to comparative research in other regional ecosystems and tailwaters. 

Comment: “The proposal for sampling work in the upper Colorado River to provide the context 

for ongoing assessments in the CRE would help validate methodologies. These benefits must be 

weighed against the $141 K cost by stakeholders.” 

Response: The proposed research in the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River (i.e., 

outside of the reach from GCD to Lake Mead) are proposed to be funded by non-GCDAMP 

sources. We nonetheless chose to include these sections in this GCDAMP project proposal 

because they help provide a more well-rounded description of all the work we are proposing over 

the next three years, and they provide complementary and supporting information for the 

remainder of the work that is proposed for GCDAMP funding. The project text has been 

modified to clarify which project sub-elements are proposed for GCDAMP funding, and which 

are proposed to be funded from non-GCDAMP sources.
Comment: “The proposed efforts on primary productivity to develop approaches to derive algae 

production estimates from dissolved oxygen measurements present opportunities for more 

efficient assessments of aquatic biology metrics.” 

Response: We thank the science advisors for their support of this project element. 

Comment: The new effort on EPT discussed above follows on scientist and stakeholder 

discussions of general hypotheses. From the five presented hypotheses, the selected hypothesis 

recommended for testing is the impacts of hydro peaking on egg mortality. As noted the flow 

experiment portion of the research (34 weekend days of low steady flow from May to August) is 

not required to develop preliminary evaluations of the hypothesis. With the emphasis that was 

placed on the need to evaluate effects of low flows on biotic communities in the 1996 EIS it is 

disheartening to have had the 2000 and 2011 low flow experiments and not have had effective 

monitoring in place to evaluate aquatic insects. Project elements 5.11-5.17 propose evaluations 

of conditions in other riverine systems, literature reviews, citizen science assessments, and 

laboratory experiments to develop initial evaluations of the hypothesis. This engagement of 

publics in the research effort has been demonstrated effective in previous program efforts and 

adds important extensions to the AM collaborative process. Clearly a need exists to evaluate 

elements that could contribute to absence of EPT in the system and flow variance seems a 

reasonable hypothesis to test. Laboratory testing of water temperature effects also seems 

reasonable to evaluate even if a selective withdrawal device is not in current management 

planning. A management action such as translocation might have merit as well, but as noted 

would be difficult to assess in this system. 

Response: We thank the science advisors for their support of this project, and their assessment 

that our proposed focal hypotheses seem reasonable candidates to test. 

Comment: Overall, Project 5 encompasses an elegant set of observational, comparative, and 

experimental studies on insect ecology and algal productivity. Presenting management 

implications after scientific rationale was very persuasive, and the citizen science dimension is 

praiseworthy. However, much hinges on the validity of H5, and it is worrisome that the 

proposing team offers very little evidence in support of that hypothesis. Simply put, given that 

conditions below GC dam are lousy for most aquatic inverts (cold water year-round, low 

particulate organic matter from upstream, no substantial riparian organic inputs, hydropeaking 

creating daily scouring and monthly hydrological instability, deep/wide channel that may lack 

microhabitats with algae and detritus accumulations), why would anything except small insects 

with rapid life cycles based on filter-feeding or collecting ever use such habitats? And given the 

extreme flow variation from hydropeaking, it is perhaps not surprising that chiros and simulids 

(both of which are often pretty sedentary) are forced to drift, yet drift in low numbers due to the 

combination of low productivity (cold, no food) and behavioral tendencies against drift. By 

extension, it seems pretty unsurprising that EPT taxa would not do well below GC dam. It is 

quite interesting that they seem to do better in other tailwater areas, but the proposal does little to 

show that shoreline desiccation from water level fluctuations is likely to be THE major cause of 

low EPT. The practical dimensions (readily manipulated without hitting hydropower or other 

interests very hard, weekly cycle over warm season, etc.) are great, but additional pilot data, 
direct observations, comparisons to hydropeaking regime at other sites, etc should be offered in 

support of a $3M proposal. 

Response: The Science Advisors note that the proposal would have been more compelling if it 

also included pilot data, direct observations, or comparisons to hydropeaking regimes on other 

rivers in support of Hypothesis 5. We certainly agree with this sentiment, but note that the 

Science Advisors did not identify any flaws in the logic that we used to ultimately focus our 

proposed investigations on Hypothesis 5; in fact, this logical structure was praised throughout 

their review comments. The Science Advisors also make the case that the ecosystem is generally 

inhospitable to aquatic insects, because there is a combination of stressors that might be 

interacting and preventing EPT from inhabiting the river. We do not disagree; however, based 

on the data presented in Fig. 1 of this proposal, EPT nonetheless make a living in other regional 

tailwaters that are also likely to be relatively “lousy,” and many even seem to do quite well in 

these other tailwaters. Clearly, EPT downstream of GCD are anomalously low, even by the 

relatively inhospitable standards found in other tailwaters. Although the physical and biotic 

conditions that are identified in this passage undoubtedly represent a filter that prevents some 

EPT taxa from inhabiting the River downstream of GCD, it is our expert opinion that only one of 

these filters (i.e., high egg mortality because of hydropeaking) can explain the zero EPT 

condition of the Glen Canyon tailwater. We have thus not modified the proposal based on these 

comments, and look forward to the opportunity to conduct syntheses and collect new field data 

that will evaluate the validity of Hypothesis 5.

Comment: Another limitation of the approach is that it focuses on singular mechanisms could 

explain the lack of EPT species below GC dam. Never did stressor synergies come up, despite 

the fact that GC dam clearly imposes three unnatural conditions: cold water, low turbidity, and 

large numbers of visually-oriented insectivorous fishes (trout). Is it really more likely that a 

single stressor has extirpated sensitive insects than a synergistic combination of stressors (scour, 

low food resources, high predation, cold, and maybe also too few wetted oviposition sites)? 

Response: We agree that the multiple stressors have likely acted synergistically to extirpate EPT 

taxa downstream of GCD. In fact, we state this explicitly in the first paragraph of our “Support 

for Hypothesis 5” section within section C.4. We go on to devote two full paragraphs to the 

discussion of significant interactions, or synergies from multiple stressors acting as filters that 

combine to extirpate and prevent recolonization of these taxa. However, our contention is that 

identification and amelioration of the primary, or limiting, stressor has the potential to improve 

conditions enough—even in the continued presence of other filters—to allow many candidate 

taxa to recolonize. This “filtering” concept has support from the literature, as noted by the 

references cited within that section. In light of the breadth of the discussion already devoted to 

the topic of multiple stressors in the project proposal, we have not modified the text in this 

instance.

Comment: Indeed, it was surprising that habitat limitation for larval insects was hardly 

mentioned. Many benthic insects require solid structure with interstitial spaces to thrive (sand 

and silt have more limited faunas), so it would be helpful to hear more about substrate patterns 

from the tailrace downward. Perhaps these concerns can be addressed by the proposing team by 
providing some details from the data that they already have in hand (e.g. dealing with 

temperature, substrate, and hydropeaking amplitude in the comparisons indicated in Fig. 1), 

along with providing some additional details on drift netting to demonstrate that EPT are not just 

being missed by the nets. 

Response: The Science Advisors note that sand and silt habitats have limited invertebrate faunas 

compared to hard substrates, and imply that a new habitat-related Hypothesis could be included 

in the proposal. We chose not to include a habitat-related hypothesis in the proposal because 

ongoing sediment studies clearly demonstrate that the river has a limited sand supply, and the 

hard substrates that support diverse invertebrate faunas are abundant (see Projects 2 and 3). 

Simply put, substrate conditions in the post-dam river are similar or, in many cases, even more 

hospitable to EPT than in other large river ecosystems. Thus, substrate cannot explain the zero 

EPT condition in Glen Canyon, or the rarity of EPT in Marble and Grand Canyon. Further, we 

are confident that our estimates of EPT abundance are accurate, and that EPT were not missed by 

our sampling nets. Recent food web investigations led by Kennedy sampled invertebrates 

throughout the Colorado River from the drift and all habitat types (i.e., cobble, sandy, cliff, talus) 

using habitat-specific sampling devices equipped with 250 micron mesh netting, which are 

capable of retaining even the smallest macroinvertebrates. These studies are cited throughout the 

proposal, and the methods we allude to here are described in much greater detail therein. Thus, 

the data on EPT abundance that were presented in the proposal come from exhaustive drift and 

benthic sampling. Additionally, invertebrate studies in the River have been conducted by several 

different groups/institutions intermittently for more than three decades, and these prior studies 

also noted the absence/rarity of EPT. 

Comment: Life history issues received less discussion that expected; midges and blackflies are 

small and develop quickly, and are talented filter feeders and collectors rather than scrapers (like 

many EPT taxa). So it seems there could be an important role for trophic ecology, as well as 

general habitat flexibility that is well known for small insects like midges and blackflies that are 

short-lived (whereas most EPT are likely to be uni- or bivoltine in rivers that are cold yearround) and often found in low quality streams. The oviposition site information presented in 

table also suggests that these flies may be more flexible than most EPT taxa in that regard. 

Response: We agree that midges and blackflies have more flexible life history attributes than 

most EPT taxa; indeed, this is why EPT are generally more sensitive to perturbation and are used 

as bioindicators, while midges and blackflies are among the most tolerant species on the planet. 

As discussed in a comment at the beginning of this document, project element 5.1.3 proposes to 

address life history differences between these organisms explicitly, with one outcome being a 

richer understanding of how and why EPT may have been extirpated from downstream of GCD 

and which species are likely to be the best candidates for re-colonization. Nonetheless, it remains 

surprising just how few EPT taxa are found downstream of GCD, particularly in the first 50 or so 

river miles, when EPT richness is 0. The mayfly genus Baetis, for instance, is globally 

ubiquitous, physically adapted to swift water, and—like midges—is a collector-gatherer. One of 

the project’s authors (Muehlbauer) has personally collected Baetis (albeit sometimes at low 

densities) in ecosystems ranging from acid drainages, to urban stormwater outlets, to blackwater, 
brackish coastal plain streams, to large, heavily regulated rivers in Europe such as the Danube. 

The absence even of EPT groups such as Baetis from downstream of GCD is thus surprising, and 

exploring the reasons for this related to species life histories, habitat conditions, trophic levels, 

etc. is a major objective of many of the project elements we propose. We have modified the 

project elements throughout (as described in responses to earlier comments) to make this clearer.

Comment: Finally, despite the elegance of the proposed experimental manipulation of dam 

discharge (which is a great idea), it was difficult to assess whether May-August is a long enough 

window to see life-cycle completion (the basis for the multigenerational amplification argument 

offered in opposition to a favoring a longer low-fluctuation period) leading to a population-level 

response. Given the unnaturally cold temperatures below GC dam, the expected growth rates 

may be too low to allow much response. This could be calculated easily from existing 

knowledge of midge secondary production, generation times, and temperature dependent growth. 

Such an argument would strengthen the case for the potential for this novel manipulation to 

unequivocally resolve whether oviposition site limitation is the core problem.” 

Response: The Science Advisors suggest that the proposed flow experiment may not be of 

sufficient duration to elicit a population-level response in invertebrates. To this point, we note 

that preliminary citizen science data indicate that midge populations can respond to 

environmental manipulations on the scale of 30 days or less (see Fig. 2). The summer timing of 

the proposed flow experiment is also designed to coincide with the time when the vast majority 

of insect emergence and egg-laying occurs, and therefore to have the greatest potential for 

effecting population-level improvements to the foodbase. However, as with the first HFEs, we 

acknowledge that uncertainty regarding the long-term efficacy of a summer flow experiment 

remains, much of which is unlikely to be resolved prior to attempting such an experiment. The 

proposed May-August timeframe for the experiment, and more significantly, the proposed 

weekends-off and weekdays-on approach, were informed by the overall importance of 

minimizing negative impacts to other GCDAMP resource goals. Our intent here was to describe 

a mitigation strategy that would likely benefit the target resource (based on preliminary data 

from monthly flow changes and the May 2013 steady flow, see Fig. 2), facilitate and increase 

learning, and minimally impact other resources. Adaptive management experimentation is an 

interactive process, and stakeholders are encouraged to view the proposed experiment as a firststep in this interactive process. 

We also acknowledge that other significant flow experiments are further along in their 

planning and development, and testing invertebrate flow experiments may not be a high priority 

at this time. For example, Trout Management Flows (TMFs) have been undergoing testing and 

refinement for more than a decade (e.g., Trout Suppression Flows were first implemented in 

2003-2005), and further testing and refinement of TMFs is a significant component of many EIS 

alternatives. Current plans for TMFs would involve stable and high discharges for a period of 

days to weeks, followed by a rapid decrease in discharge intended to strand and kill juvenile 

trout that have moved to high elevation edge habitats. TMFs represent a unique opportunity to 

study the processes of insect egg-laying and egg-mortality under two different stable flow 

conditions (high stable discharge followed by low stable discharge). We will capitalize on this 
and any other learning opportunities that present themselves. However, TMFs are unlikely to 

benefit EPT because mortality of insect eggs would likely occur when flows are reduced. It is 

our belief that flow management actions more specifically geared toward improving the 

productivity of the foodbase and promoting colonization of EPT, such as the flow experiment 

proposed in this project, are likely to have much more notable, positive effects on this resource. 

We look forward to the opportunity to revise and refine the invertebrate mitigation flow 

experiment in collaboration with stakeholders and other scientists as part of the LTEMP EIS 

process. 

Comment: “Project 5: This program has developed critically needed understanding of food 

base in this system. In its ongoing efforts, management needs to know if and how the challenges 

of evolutionary history can be accommodated and what expectations in this system are realistic. 

Developing the bottom-up assessments and modeling approaches are helpful in evaluation of the 

top-down constraints apparent in higher trophic levels. The proposal for sampling work in the 

upper Colorado River to provide the context for ongoing assessments in the CRe would help 

validate methods. The mix of laboratory and in-stream experiments to probe basis for EPT 

existence/low abundance provides the type of science alternatives important to managers in their 

efforts to support broad based initiatives. Pursuing lab assessments initially to assist design 

elements of river based experimentation is applauded. Establishing proofs with river based 

experimentation will be difficult and longer term. The creative implementation of citizen science 

in these programs should be emulated as possible in other programs.” 

Response: We thank the science advisors for their support of this project.

Project 5 Response to Colden Baxter’s Comments 

Prepared by Ted Kennedy and Jeff Muehlbauer, GCMRC 

Comment: I begin with assessment of two of the key premises, which are clearly stated in the 

opening sentences of the project summary: “The absence of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies 

from the Colorado River in Glen Canyon, and the rarity of these insect groups in Marble and 

Grand Canyon, indicates this segment of river is unhealthy. The stressors that prevent mayflies, 

stoneflies, and caddisflies (i.e., EPT) from re-colonizing the Colorado River may also be 

contributing to low overall production of midges and blackflies (i.e., the foodbase that supports 

key fish populations).” Fundamentally, I judge that the scientific reasoning behind both of these 

statements is sound. There is a history of controversy surrounding the use of terms like “health” 

and “integrity” to describe ecosystems (e.g., Costanza et al. 1992, Suter 1993, Wicklum and 

Davies 1995). On the other hand, the concept of ecosystem health has gone through several 

decades of refinement and is now consistently used in ecosystem management applications 

(Rapport et al. 2009). There is a strong precedent for its use in the context of riverine 

ecosystems, there is a well-established body of work that links assessment of river ecosystem 

health to the community structure of benthic macroinvertebrates (e.g., Carlisle et al. 2013), and 

such assessments frequently rely upon so-called “EPT” taxa (insects belonging to the orders 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) as principal indicators (e.g., Reynoldson and 

Metcalfe-Smith 1992, Rosenberg and Resh 1993, Rosenberg, Resh and King 2008). EPT taxa are 

key components of the “reference condition” of most temperate rivers of the world, including the 

Colorado River, as pointed out by the proposal authors in proposal section 5.2C. Therefore, the 
authors’ first statement seems a well substantiated claim, and they are justified in outlining a 

series of hypotheses to be investigated so as to better understand the factors limiting these taxa. 

The second statement, that stressors presently constraining EPT taxa in the Colorado River may 

also be contributing to low production of midges and blackflies (which currently contribute 

disproportionately to sustaining fish production), seems to me an additional plausible hypothesis, 

as indeed it is treated in the balance of the proposal. 

The proposal authors then link the first two statements analyzed in the previous paragraph to 

Goal 1 of the strategic plan of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management (GCDAMP) 

Program: to “Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of 

desired species at high trophic levels.” Though there might be other reasons to manage for a 

more diverse insect assemblage in the Colorado River (e.g., maintenance of native biodiversity is 

an important mission of the National Park Service), as I understand it, at present this Goal 1 of 

the GCDAMP strategic plan seems to be the principal policy basis for justifying a science focus 

on factors limiting diversity and productivity of insects in the river. It also seems to me there are 

two key assumptions essential to making the link as the proposal authors have done. First, it is 

assumed that populations of desired species at higher trophic levels (e.g., fishes) are limited by 

food, an assumption that is solidly rooted in the results of recent detailed food web studies, in 

which I have participated (e.g., Cross et al. 2013, Kennedy et al. 2013). Second, it is assumed 

that the goal could be met by increasing midge and blackfly production and/or by restoring a 

more diverse insect assemblage (including EPT taxa). Whereas the former seems like a 

straightforward inference from the evidence that fishes are food limited, the latter requires closer 

examination. 

I can think of two basic means by which a more diverse insect assemblage (including EPT 

taxa) in the Colorado River might be expected to improve the capacity of the aquatic foodbase to 

“...support viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels.” First, reasoning from a 

“niche-based” perspective, a more diverse assemblage of river insects might be expected to make 

more efficient use of food and space, yielding greater total insect production. However, 

relationships between diversity and productivity in plant and animal communities have been the 

subject of both empirical and theoretical investigation for decades, and the results vary greatly 

with organism groups, context, and scale of investigation (e.g., Mittlebach et al. 2001, Chase and 

Leibold 2002, Hillebrand and Cadinale 2010, Cardinale et al. 2012). There have been 

surprisingly few investigations of the relationship when it comes to river insects, mostly because 

there have been relatively few whole-assemblage estimates of secondary invertebrate production 

in streams and rivers. Those few studies have typically revealed positive associations between 

insect diversity and secondary production (e.g., Benke et al. 1985, Benke and Huryn 2010), and 

related studies suggest this relationship may be most consistently positive in settings subject to 

the frequent hydrologic disturbance (e.g., Cardinale et al. 2005, Whiles and Goldowitz 2010). In 

addition, diversity-productivity relationships are frequently “hump-shaped,” such that positive 

associations occur at low levels of diversity. For both of these reasons, it seems likely that an 

increase in diversity of the Colorado River in Glen, Marble or Grand canyons (where hydrologic 

disturbance—at least in the form of peaking—is frequent, and insect diversity is extremely low) 

would result in an increase in invertebrate production. In turn, if food is limiting fishes, then an 

increase in total insect production might be expected to fuel increases in fish populations as well. 

However, under any future line of research and monitoring these should be treated as hypotheses 

to be investigated. 
A second mechanism by which an increase in the diversity of the insect assemblage might 

translate into positive consequences for the viability of fish populations (or, indeed, populations 

of other insectivores that depend on river-derived prey) is perhaps best expressed in terms of the 

“stock portfolio” analogy. Indeed, Dr. Kennedy, one of the lead investigators of the proposed 

work, has used this analogy several times in presentations and discussions on this topic, though it 

was not explicitly articulated in the proposal text (but see proposal section 5.2C). In brief, the 

idea is that diversifying the insect assemblage would improve the reliability of its performance as 

the food base for insectivores like many fishes, much as modern economic theory predicts 

optimal long term performance of a stock portfolio with diversification of investments. The 

improved “reliability” of the insect assemblage as a food base could take several forms. 

Productivity of a more diverse insect assemblage might prove more resistant (or resilient) to 

changes in the river resulting in the reduction or loss of individual species. Similarly, because 

increased insect diversity would lead to more diverse insect life histories, the timing of life 

cycles might be more complex, resulting in more consistent availability of insect resources 

across seasons or among years. Specifically, an increase in insect diversity might mean favorable 

feeding conditions for fish in the Colorado River would become less dependent upon whether 

conditions had been good for growing blackflies or midges. In turn, this might lead to a more 

consistently favorable state for sustaining healthy fish populations, buffering against changes in 

insect production that might otherwise translate into dramatic swings in fish populations (e.g., as 

we have observed for the Glen Canyon trout population in response to changes in midge and 

blackfly production following high flow experiments; Cross et al. 2011, 2013). The portfolio 

analogy is a powerful and intuitive one. However, it also represents a hypothesis, rather than a 

principal that can be assumed. 

To me the array of activities proposed by the authors seem predicated on the assumptions and 

the two additional hypotheses on which I have focused in the preceding paragraphs. This means 

that though I judge the work proposed here to be necessary, I would point out that it may not be 

altogether sufficient to make the key connection between the work and Goal 1 of the GCAMP 

strategic plan. Let me elaborate. The authors outline a set of five hypotheses regarding 

mechanisms that might limit EPT taxa and productivity of midges and blackflies. These are wellreasoned and articulated. They then proceed to limit the scope of the proposed investigations 

(proposals 5.1 and 5.2) to addressing hypotheses 4 and 5, respectively. The reasons for this focus 

also seem well justified to me in the pragmatic context of adaptive management—though I leave 

it to others to evaluate whether the authors’ assumptions about management practicalities are 

accurate. Hypotheses 4 and 5 posit that EPT taxa are limited by hydro-peaking activities because 

it causes catastrophic drift and high mortality of EPT larvae (H4) and/or because it caused high 

egg mortality (i.e., limiting recruitment, H5). Addressing these hypotheses seems necessary, and 

I judge that the proposed combination of studies would accomplish this (but see below for 

relatively minor technical comments). However, in light of my general comments above, I’d 

suggest that there are perhaps two additional elements that should be considered that would 

address each of the two hypotheses I outlined above. 

First, I think that the proposed emergence and drift studies involving comparisons between 

Glen/Grand Canyon and other sites in the upper basin (or entailed in the proposed synthesis 

across tailwaters) would benefit from a more explicit plan to evaluate the relationship between 

insect diversity and productivity. For the purposes of such analyses, measures of drift and/or 

emergence rates might be used in lieu of benthic production estimates, which I think would be 
fine. On the other hand, I suspect an array of benthic invertebrate data exist for the suite of 

tailwaters the investigators propose to study (and especially for Glen Canyon and Flaming 

Gorge), which may mean the relationship could be evaluated using a combination of data types. 

In any case, the point is that under the proposed activities the data would be collected to 

investigate the relationship, so it should be tested rather than assumed. In turn, this would help 

managers determine “where on the diversity-productivity curve” each of the tailwaters resides, 

and hence, what gains in productivity might be expected with improvements in diversity at these 

respective locations.” 

Response: The reviewer ‘unpacks’ the Problem Statement and Management Background 

sections of the proposal, and suggests that assumptions that are implicit in these sections could 

actually be treated as hypotheses to be evaluated during the course of our studies. Describing the 

relationship between invertebrate diversity and invertebrate productivity in other tailwaters is an 

interesting idea, and could easily be folded into the proposed synthesis of the foodbase for 

western tailwaters (project element 5.1.4). We have updated the proposal and now include 

description of the diversity-productivity relationship for tailwaters as an explicit goal of this 

project element.

Comment: Second, I would recommend more explicit investigation of the link between insect 

diversity itself (i.e., not productivity alone) and the capacity of the foodbase to sustain viable 

populations of fishes. This is necessary if the proposed activities are to make the direct link to the 

desire outcome articulated in Goal 1 of the GCDAMP. Again, I suspect this is the kind of 

analysis that could only be accomplished by comparison across tailwaters and/or between 

Glen/Grand Canyon and upper basin sites. Ideally, such an investigation would amount to a test 

of several predictions derived from the “portfolio hypothesis” described above. I will outline a 

few of these. For instance, if the invertebrate portfolio hypothesis is correct, then one expectation 

would be that tailwaters with more diverse insect assemblages should host fish populations that 

have diets that are more diverse over time (across a hierarchy of time scales from days to seasons 

to years) than those of fishes in tailwaters with lower insect diversity, reflecting the ability of 

fishes to track resource availability and switch from one prey type to another. Following from 

this, another important expectation would be that fish populations in tailwaters with higher insect 

diversity should also exhibit less dramatic swings in numbers and/or population size structure—

reflecting the presumed “buffering” effect of the diverse insect portfolio. I suspect that there are 

quite a lot of existing data that could be brought to bear to test these predictions. Testing the first 

of the two predictions regarding fish diet diversity might involve making use of existing and 

published data for fishes from some tailwaters, but could require some sleuthing and new 

analysis for other sites. Many fishery monitoring programs regularly collect gut content samples 

of their populations. These samples do not always get processed (but may be archived and 

available), and if they are analyzed they may be published infrequently. In addition, fisheries 

monitoring often involves sacrificing and preserving fish for other reasons (including museum 

collections), and some of these specimens may be available for use in testing this prediction. 

Similarly, I suspect the second prediction regarding buffering of longer-term dynamics in fish 

populations could be tested using existing fisheries monitoring datasets. Though few tailwaters 

have the same intensity of fish population monitoring as Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge, I 

suspect that several others that encompass the needed gradients in insect diversity could be 

identified that also have the needed fisheries data. Indeed, the “tailwater synthesis” currently 

being conducted by GCMRC (led by Kim Dibble) should set the stage wonderfully for such an 
analysis because it has focused on trout population data, and the new analysis might be included 

as part of the “food base” synthesis of western tailwaters proposed here.” 

Response: The reviewer identifies approaches for explicitly linking the studies we propose to the 

GCDAMP’s Goal 1 for foodbase. Specifically, the reviewer suggests that direct links between 

proposed invertebrate studies and fish populations could be accomplished by 1) quantifying diet 

diversity of trout populations in other tailwaters to see if diet diversity increases with invertebrate 

diversity, and 2) evaluating whether trout populations in tailwaters that have more diverse 

invertebrate assemblages tend to exhibit less dramatic swings in abundance. Incorporating these 

types of investigations into Project 5 would serve to identify what might be expected in terms of 

trout population dynamics if a more diverse invertebrate assemblage was present downstream of 

Glen Canyon Dam. The reviewer identifies that pre-existing fish diet and long-term population 

abundance data for other tailwaters might allow these types of investigations to be accomplished 

without the need for additional field data collections. These are all excellent and practical 

suggestions for explicitly linking our proposed invertebrate studies to important fisheries 

questions that are relevant to the AMP. However, acquiring museum specimens or other fish 

samples needed to rigorously quantify diet diversity would require considerable time and effort, 

and is beyond the scope of our proposed budget. We have updated the synthesis of the foodbase 

in other western tailwaters section (Project element 5.1.4), and now describe how we will 

collaborate with Dibble on the larger tailwater synthesis and identify whether trout population 

dynamics (e.g., population stability) in tailwaters are related to invertebrate diversity. Additional 

funding would be required to support the description of diet diversity in other tailwaters. 

Technical comments 

Comment: First, a number of the proposed activities link to the possibility that oviposition 

conditions and/or egg mortality constrain the productivity of existing insect taxa (midges and 

blackflies) in the mainstem Colorado in Glen and Grand Canyons and/or limit to potential for 

maintaining EPT taxa. These are plausible hypotheses, and given the lack of our understanding 

regarding such crucial life cycle stages it seems likely we stand to learn very useful lessons via 

such investigations. In all of the years that invertebrate sampling has been done in places like 

Grand Canyon and Flaming Gorge, it is striking that we remain so “blind” when it comes to 

these stages. This blindness stems, in part, from the traditional means by which we sample and 

monitor benthic insects, which themselves shed little light on these processes. Such methods are 

so entrenched that it hardly requires more than a sentence or two to convey to scientists (and 

indeed many managers as well) how studies that employ these techniques will be conducted. On 

the other hand, the methods used to survey egg-laying behavior of a wide range of taxa, or the 

techniques to be used to quantify mortality rates of insect eggs across a spectrum of taxa, 

locations and time periods—both of which are proposed here—are much less standardized. The 

investigators did not include any methodological detail that might help the audience to 

understand how such investigations are to be performed with confidence and success. With the 

suite of experts that are involved, I suspect that the methods have been thought out in rigorous 

fashion. Yet, in many cases studies of insect egg laying and egg development/mortality have 

been conducted at small scales and/or to pursue questions much different from those this team 

proposes to investigate—typically to get at life cycle questions rather than evaluating population 

level implications. However, there has been a recent shift toward the latter, and associated 

methods are becoming more commonplace (see, for example, studies of the mayfly Baetis by 

Lancaster et al. 2010, Encalada and Peckarsky 2011). Anyway, I think it would be helpful to 
know more about how the investigators plan to conduct these components of their planned work, 

and I expect this would help to a) justify the focus on egg laying and development stages and b) 

help managers envision how the work would be accomplished. This technical issue seems 

especially critical because a major flow manipulation experiment is proposed whose key 

mechanistic response metrics include egg-laying and egg mortality. Nevertheless, the group has a 

history of developing and applying new techniques with success, and (see my next comment) I 

myself am confident they will tackle these challenges with similar outcomes. 

Response: The methods and techniques used to quantify insect egg-laying and egg mortality, 

two of the key processes that we will study as part of Project 5, are not well developed. 

However, the reviewer identifies several recent studies, some of which are already cited in the 

proposal, that provide examples of methods that have been successfully used to study these 

processes in small streams. We have updated relevant sections of the proposal, and now 

explicitly describe some of the approaches we will attempt to use to study these important 

processes. We also note that innovation and new methods will likely be required to successfully 

study these processes in the Colorado River. 

Comment: Rather than raising any other methodological “issues” I’d next like to make a 

supporting point to help emphasize an opportunity represented in the proposed work. For almost 

15 years I have studied the emergence of adult insects from streams and rivers as part of a wide 

variety of food web investigations. These investigators are using novel techniques and what I 

think is an unprecedented citizen science program to measure the process of insect emergence in 

a way that has not before been accomplished. I see this as a real strength of the proposed 

activities. The use of the citizen science approach is allowing the team to amass a dataset that has 

a spatial and temporal extent and resolution that is rather unheard of when it comes to the study 

of riverine insects. Together, these two measures, extent and resolution, determine the “scope” of 

a method to detect patterns at multiple scales in space and time (see Wiens 1989, Schneider 

2001). I am aware of no study of river insects that has ever collected data with such high scope 

as are presently being accomplished by this team. It is exactly these kinds of inventive efforts 

that I think are most likely to reveal new patterns not previously detected during the decades of 

repeated applications of traditional techniques with much more limited scope. In turn, I think that 

detection of these patterns and the novel hypotheses they generate (like those articulated in this 

proposal) are what will fuel the creative feedback needed between science and management in 

the context of adaptive management. 

Response: We thank the reviewer for these supportive comments. 
Project 6. Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub 

Aggregations and Fish Community Dynamics 

Response to Review of Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial 

Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2015-2017 

Page 17. Reviewers questioned why monitoring is a conservation measure. We used the meaning 

of “conservation measure” as described on page 32 of the 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: 

“Reclamation has committed to expand the information and understanding of mainstem 

aggregations through improved monitoring to support humpback chub distribution throughout 

the action area as a new conservation measure. Monitoring will be expanded beyond the small 

NSE study area to better understand the population dynamics of the mainstem aggregations of 

humpback chub, including yearly trips to try and generate population estimates for these 

aggregations.” 

Page 17. Reviewers commented that project element 6.8 on the Lees Ferry Creel Survey should 

be funded. We agree and consider the creel survey to be a very important data collection effort. 

We clarified the text to state that creel surveys during FY2015 would be conducted and funded 

by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) with funding outside of the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). USGS GCMRC will continue to fund the project 

during FY2016 and FY2017, with the expectation that AGFD will fund the project every third 

year. USGS does charge GCMRC burden on the project during FY2016 and FY2017 when funds 

are transferred to AGFD, but the rate is very low (3%). We do not charge burden on projects not 

funded by the AMP such as the Creel Survey in FY2015. 

Page 18. Reviewers point out that a major shortcoming of the proposal document was the lack of 

concrete evidence from past work to justify approaches proposed for FY2015-2017. We added 

text, tables and figures to the Scientific Background Section to clarify and provide more 

background on monitoring work that has taken place during the past three decades. 

Page 18. Reviewers asked about specific locations where PIT tracking at aggregations was 

employed, and asked if data would be comparable to CPUE data and older datasets to test 

whether there are more chubs today than before, and how much they move. PIT tag antennas, 

although successfully deployed in the LCR, have been used in the mainstem Colorado River only 

during brief pilot testing. We plan to temporarily deploy antennas from boats while they are 

moored at campsites, and then move the antenna to the next campsite with the boat. Locations 

where detections are attempted will therefore be restricted largely to established campsites, but 

should encompass most of the length of the river. Data derived from these efforts may help 

identify additional locations occupied by PIT tagged chub and may inform us regarding 

movement of PIT tagged fish within Grand Canyon. At present we do not think the data from 

these efforts can be used to estimate chub abundances, although if we can establish permanent 

deployment locations, they might be used to generate survival estimates. 
Page 18. Reviewers suggestion that anglers mark chub while trout fishing, while appealing, is 

likely not feasible because there is very little angling in Grand Canyon except in the tailwater 

trout fishery and in Bright Angel Creek. We also want anglers to release any humpback chub 

captured immediately without mutilating the fish. 

Project 7. Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and 

around the Little Colorado River 

Response to Reviewer Comments 

In response to reviewer comments we provide estimates of the variability in juvenile abundance 

and outmigration rates in the text as well as provide figures previously reported in presentations 

showing estimates of juvenile chub survival with respect to trout abundance estimates, 

comparisons of a simulation model with historical trends, and a figure illustrating how 

temperature, trout abundance and LCR recruitment interact to determine minimum population 

sizes over twenty-year simulations for the LTEMP process. 

 It was also suggested that we dig into the LCR temperature data. An in-review manuscript by 

Dzul et al., somewhat addresses this suggestion by looking at seasonal and spatial variation in 

growth, survival and abundance, however there are a number of complications in a simple 

comparison to temperature. For example, within-day variation in temperature in the LCR is 

substantial and may be more important than average temperatures, not to mention early evidence 

that food availability is likely to vary systematically within the LCR. The reviewer also suggests 

looking at inter-annual variation in water temperature, however, LCR temperatures are 

remarkably constant when compared between years owing to the constant temperature coming 

out of Blue and others springs and the relatively short travel time between Blue Springs and the 

confluence. While it is true that inputs above base flow can change the temperature, they also 

change the turbidity and food availability. Juvenile chub density is likely to play a bigger role in 

differences in inter-annual growth and tapeworm prevalence than temperature differences. 

While the experimental approach to washing gravel beds is a very interesting, it may be 

premature and given budget constraints we suggest focusing on cheaper observational studies in 

the short-term. 

With regards to science advisor comments regarding recovery after electrofishing in the Little 

Colorado River there are no such observations because electrofishing in the LCR is not practiced 

owing to the high conductivity. There are field observations of juvenile chub losing equilibrium 

when held in water entering the LCR from side springs that are higher in CO2 than the water in 

the main channel. Humpback chub that are translocated from the lower portion of the Little 

Colorado River to areas above Chute falls also must undergo extensive tempering to prevent loss 

as a result of the CO2 change. 

Other comments suggest some confusion about triggers related to non-native species control. 

Data collected through project elements 7.1 and 7.2 are directly linked to current triggers. 
Survival and abundance estimates to inform triggers are calculated as part of project element 

7.10. These projects are the basic monitoring program for the LCR aggregation of humpback 

chub (not extensions as suggested) and there are no barriers. Given the way the biological 

opinion was written it is unlikely that removals will be triggered in the next 3 years even though 

chub will likely be declining (under the most probably scenario that trout abundances remain 

high near the confluence in the short to mid-term). This has nothing to do with monitoring or 

research, but rather with the policy metrics and triggers chosen. The research projects suggested 

are designed to help rule out competing hypotheses about causes of decline/recovery so 

managers will have the necessary tools and understanding to act when it is deemed necessary. 

Project 8. Management Actions to Increase Abundance 

and Distribution of Native Fishes in Grand Canyon 

Response to Reviewers Comments

While there is no question that non-native removal is a key tool, the proposal should make it 

more clear how many trout can be removed a year, and what kind of impact that would have on 

their overall abundance. 

Response: Brown trout removal in the Mainstem Colorado River near Bright Angel Creek has 

only been conducted once as of this date, so the amount of information available on effectiveness 

and potential impacts are very limited at this point. In 2013, 1,851 nonnative fish were removed 

with a majority of those being rainbow trout (1370) and brown trout (336) (Nelson and others 

2014, Bright Angel Creek infow trout reduction Study trip report). Conditions in 2013 were not 

ideal for electrofishing because of the High Flow Event and subsequent storm events that caused 

the water to be very turbid during the removal effort. The number of fish that were removed was 

far less than what was anticipated could be removed with this 5-pass effort. Estimates of the 

cumulative percent of trout removed, based on capture probability, indicate that in 2013 less than 

50 % of the trout population in the area was removed with this effort. Unless conditions improve 

in future years and significantly more fish can be removed, it is unlikely that the removal effort 

will impact overall abundance of trout in the mainstem near the Bright Angel inflow. For this 

reason additional years of effort are needed to evaluate effectiveness under better environmental 

conditions. If significantly more fish are not able to be removed in future years then the project 

will likely be discontinued, and the scheduled protocol evaluation panel in FY 16 or 17 will 

assist with making the recommendation to continue or discontinue this effort. 

Of the fish removed in the past, what proportion are big enough to eat small chubs? 

Response: Predation vulnerability of small chubs to rainbow and brown trout depends on the 

size of the trout, the size of the chub, and the species of trout, so the specific answer to this 

question is complex, but in general, most of the fish that are removed via electrofishing in this 

area are adult fish (>300 mm TL) which are capable of preying on small juvenile chub (<60 mm 

Total length). 

There is mention of relationships between removal needs and water temperature; what have the 

years of data since Coggins 2011 taught us about the strength of that relationship? It would be 
helpful to know whether chub (positive effect) or rainbow trout (negative effect) are more 

temperature sensitive, since that helps to frame how the future balance between trout fisheries 

and chub conservation can be struck under climate change. 

Response: Water temperature does affect predation vulnerability of small chub. Most of this 

information comes from ongoing laboratory studies. Preliminary results indicate that for every 1 

°C increase in water temperature (from 10 °C to 20 °C) there is a corresponding decrease in 

predation vulnerability of small chub to rainbow trout by about 5% (Ward et al. 2014 Annual 

Reporting Meeting, Poster Session). In reference to climate change and water temperature, 

effects of a large hydroelectric dam on water temperatures will always likely have a much larger 

impact on water temperatures than climate change effects. Significant nearshore warming was 

not observed, under current release volumes, for much of Grand Canyon (Ross and Vernieu 

2013, Nearshore temperature findings for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, ArizonaPossible implications for native fish). The Colorado River in Grand Canyon will likely remain 

below the thermal optimum of humpback chub in much of Grand Canyon even under projected 

conditions of global warming. 

Is there potential to encourage recreational anglers to fish the Bright Angel area for brown trout, 

with a mandatory culling rule? That could potentially yield much higher removal rates, imposed 

year-round at low/no cost, as well as engaging citizens in the control effort. 

Response: It is unlikely that angling pressure on Bright Angel could be sufficient to remove 

enough fish to have a population level impact even with increased encouragement. Over 

14,000 fish were removed by the Park Service using backpack elecrofishing in Bright Angel 

Creek from Jan- Feb of 2013 (Healy et al. 2013, Bright Angel Creek Trout control project, trip 

report). That magnitude of removal is just not possible in such a remote area with the amount of 

angler use that Bright Angel Creek receives. 

There is also a need to be more clear about the success of past translocations. 

Response: This is a good question. One reason that the success of translocations is unclear is 

that there is no consensus on how we measure success of a translocation? If we measure success 

in terms of growth rates because we know that increased growth rates equate to higher survival 

then we have good data to suggest that translocating fish has been successful. If we measure 

success in terms of how many fish survive then the answer is unknown because we do not have 

good survival data for most of the translocated fish. If we measure success in terms of 

establishing self-sustaining populations of humpback chub in new areas, then we have not been 

successful yet because we do not have documented reproduction in these areas. The protocol 

evaluation pane scheduled to take place in FY16 or 17 will hopefully assist with answering these 

questions about success of translocation efforts and whether or not translocations should 

continue. 

Does PIT monitoring indicate survival of all/most fish translocated since 2008? 

Response: Pit tag monitoring does detect a few of the translocated humpback chub at the 

downstream fixed antenna near the confluence, but those data do not tell us anything about 
survival of fish that remained upstream. Fish and Wildlife Service annual monitoring does give 

some information about survival of translocated fish that remained upstream, and the following 

paragraph pasted from the 2014 FWS trip report summarizes that information, “...in the two 

reaches above Lower Atomizer Falls between the summer 2009, 890 unique Humpback Chub 

were captured, and the summer 2010, only 13 unique chub were captured. However, the 

Humpback Chub juveniles (68-136 mm) that were translocated after this event have shown 

relatively high retention and growth rates above Lower Atomizer Falls through this May. For 

example, this May we recaptured (A) eight of the 109 chub (7.3%) translocated in 2010 (277-413 

mm at recapture); (B) 34 of the 96 chub (35.4%) translocated in 2011 (233-334 mm); (C) 40 of 

the 212 chub (18.9%) translocated in 2012 (183-303 mm); and (D) 113 of the 303 chub 

translocated (37.3%) last November (111-210 mm). (Stone, 2014 trip report. Spring Monitoring 

of Humbpack chub above Lower Atomizer Falls in the Little Colorado River.) 

In terms of genetic assessments of chub aggregations, microsats may no longer be the best 

method; SNIPS or extensive sequencing is now within reach to gain very high resolution. These 

methods can now be outsourced at low cost, allowing investigators to focus on interpreting the 

data. If population sizes are small enough above Chute falls, detailed parentage analysis may 

even be possible for translocated and naturally-spawned fish. 

Response: These are all great suggestions that we will pass along to those who will be 

contracted to do the genetic analysis. We have removed the specific reference to microsatellite 

genotyping within the work plan. Instead we have been more general and have indicated that 

DNA samples from Humpback chub fin clips will be genotyped to establish baseline data. The 

specific methods for the genetic analysis will be developed in collaboration with Wade Wilson, 

Geneticist at the Southwest Native Aquatic Resources Research and Recovery Center. 

Project 9. Understanding the Factors Determining 

Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and Movement of 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons 

Response to Reviewers Comments

Project 9 incorporates the ongoing monitoring efforts to evaluate status and trends of rainbow 

trout resources. Project 9 is aimed at filling a large and critical knowledge gap, which has 

significant implications for humpback chub and recreational angling. The hypotheses proposed 

on p. 281 seem reasonable and important to test. Overall the individual proposed projects within 

Project 9 seem to have some capability to address the key issues and hypotheses sufficient to 

warrant the amount of budgetary funds involved. It also proposes multiple new studies to 

evaluate and define key drivers that can impart change in RBT population size, movement, 

survival, reproduction, size, and condition. All of these factors are hypothesized to have some 

effect on individuals and populations, and previous evaluations of varied scope have occurred in 

the program. Some assessments are extensions or add on analysis to evaluations approved in the 

2013-14 Plan. To reiterate the point made in Project 6 we believe that discontinuing creel surveys 
may be ill advised in the short run. Presumably while the new mark-recapture methods for 

estimating trout populations are being developed the creel census will continue so that a 

relationship between the two can be established that will be useful for back- casting trout 

populations using the new method in order to have a consistent time series. Sport fishing for 

RBT in the Glen Canyon NRA is an important social benefit of the tail-water from GCD and 

brings with it many socio-economic issues. 

Response to review comment concerning creel surveys (Project 6) 

Workplan FY2015-17 has been structurally organized around three primary resource programs, 

physical, biological, and cultural, and these programs have been further partitioned into multiple 

projects that make distinctions between monitoring and research. For this reason, the creel 

survey is not part of Project 9. Clearly, there are numerous linkages that exist between the 

different project elements and a reliance on the consistent flow of data coming from baseline 

monitoring (6.4, 6.7 & 6.8). Therefore, these monitoring data are essential to the management of 

the Lees Ferry trout fishery because they provide an indication of the influence of Glen Canyon 

Dam operations and other naturally occurring disturbances in the Colorado River ecosystem 

(CRe) on the health of the rainbow trout fishery. Inferences from these data have fueled the types 

of questions that are being addressed by these research activities, but are temporary in scope. 

Secondly, project element 9.1 (Rainbow Trout Population Dynamics – Ongoing Modelling and 

Future Monitoring) is to evaluate monitoring protocols to determine if these meet current 

management needs, and transition from a research focused approach (Natal Origin Research 

project) to a better more appropriate monitoring plan for the future, and that is collaboratively 

develop by GCMRC and its cooperators, and technically reviewed. 

RBT growth rates have declined and abundances have become highly variable. Although 

downstream migrations and reproduction by migrants are still not well understood there should 

be continued effort to expand learning regarding relationships of Glen Canyon and Marble 

Canyon populations. Continued efforts are also recommended in providing better definition to 

HBC/RBT predation relationships. The capacity of this species to expand its habitat quickly on 

potential warming water should receive increased attention. Management of operations can affect 

this species and attention to water level management, experimental flows, and related food-base 

efforts need to continue. Although this premier sports fishery is a critical resource to maintain, it 

also could be a significant threat to HBC. Given that warmer water is probable for this river over 

the next two decades yet no management action is proposed regarding a selective withdrawal 

device, HBC at the LCR could receive threats from RBT and other predators in the river. It 

would be important for managers to understand how quickly RBT populations could expand in 

warmer water and their predation expectations. 

Response to review comment concerning regarding potential warming 

There are a number of uncertainties regarding fish community response in the CRe to changes 

from geomorphic, hydrologic, and climatic factors. Clearly, changes in the thermal regime have 

and are more likely to occur in the future. Although not explicitly stated in this workplan 
(FY2015-17) temperature is recognized as a major ecological driver that is likely to affect not 

only the native and nonnative fish communities but the aquatic foodbase resources of this 

system. For this reason, this and other physio-chemical parameters are being monitored (Project 

2) by an array of stations robustly distributed throughout this system. Also, we are reevaluating 

the monitoring protocols (6.4, 6.7 & 6.8) to determine if these meet current management needs 

for measuring fishery responses accurately. As identified by Yackulic (unpublished data) the 

increased information from mark-capture data over CPU data has increased our understanding of 

the roles of temperature and trout in the dynamics of juvenile humpback chub through NSE and 

then JCM sampling (see Project Element 7.2). The impetus for evaluating current monitoring 

protocols is to make sure that the sampling design and type of fish metric will be informative 

enough to make inferences on fish community responses throughout the CRe regardless of the 

causal mechanism. 

Most of the specific project elements build on earlier work, and the proposal would be 

strengthened considerably by drawing more directly on evidence from previous data collection. 

For example, in element 9.4, what has been learned from all the past drift netting and stomach 

content analyses? If there is not strong evidence of selectivity, then the morphometric 

dimension of this study might be difficult to interpret. 

Response to review comment concerning morphometric analysis 

We agree with the reviewers regarding the need to include additional evidence to support this 

proposed scope of work. We inserted another paragraph into the document, project element 9.4 – 

Inserted paragraph - Results from detailed diet analysis from mechanical removal (2003-2004) 

on rainbow trout (n=1,391) and brown trout (n = 401) (Yard, unpublished) suggest that 

invertebrate prey availability and prey size; as well as predator size strongly influences feeding 

success. Aquatic prey items found in the CRe lack taxonomic diversity, these invertebrates 

consist primarily of a Nearctic dipteran assemblage of small midges and black flies, and a large 

lentic species of amphipod (Gammarus lacustris). Diet for both trout species indicates a high 

electivity for larger rather than smaller prey items. (An electivity index [E] is based on a scale of 

1 to -1, and represents the relative proportion of a diet item to its availability in the drift.) 

Rainbow trout consume prey like G. lacustris (E = 0.87; size range 1-12 mm) and black flies (E 

= 0.55; size range 0.7-5 mm) in higher proportion than their availability; however, midges (E = -

0.79; size range 0.5-2 mm) and zooplankton (E = -1; size range 0.35-0.7 mm) were consumed 

less than their availability. Although suspended sediment appears to negatively affect prey 

detection for visual sight feeders by reducing food intake (high frequency of empty stomachs 

during increased turbidity) (unpublished data) (project 9.5 & 9.6), trout size was also negatively 

correlated with prey food intake (weight of gut contents). Essentially, the difference between 

observed and expected food intake based on size suggests that daily rations for trout become 

limiting for larger sized trout (> 250 mm TL), unless prey availability is limitless. Budy and 

others (2005) and Langeland and Nost (1995) analyses of branchial arch/gill-raker morphology 
for rainbow and brown trout, respectively, strongly suggest that prey size and its availability may 

be a limiting factor on trout growth because of feeding inefficiencies with increasing trout size. 

Due to and earlier revision that changed the availability of funding available to complete these 

analyses we excluded any effort to evaluate humpback chub, and have limited our analyses to 

only rainbow trout and brown trout. 

In addition, is there a way to engage anglers as citizen scientists in the effort to understand trout 

movement patterns? Assuming that angler efforts range more freely in space and time than 

scientists can, then creating a physical mark (adipose clip or v-cut in dorsal) on trout caught in 

one place (e.g. tailrace of GC dam) could enable a small army of to contribute to monitoring 

trout movement. Alternatively, can otolith chemistry approaches be used in the trout studies?

Response to review comment concerning using citizen science to resolve trout movement 

Citizen science has been an effective means for documenting and collecting secondary 

information on specific resource responses (e.g., repeat photography as per Adopt a Beach 

Program, and use of invertebrate light traps as per Aquatic Foodbase Program). Unfortunately, 

angler use in this river system is primarily centered in the Glen Canyon reach. Although, 

recreational angling occurs downstream in the Marble Canyon reaches, it is seasonally and 

spatially limited in scale to upstream as well as unpredictable across years. The lack of a broader 

spatial distribution in anglers and the inability to quantify the distribution of their effort 

throughout the area of interest (Glen Canyon to below the LCR) has a potential to create spatial 

and sampling bias. The use of external marks or tags necessary for detection by anglers has a 

higher shed rate than passive integrated transponders. Additionally, without inducing differential 

mortality by size the application of external tags (e.g., floy or Carlin tags) is limited to larger 

sized animals. Engaging anglers has some scientific value (e.g., creel study); however, altering 

the current sampling design for NO is unlikely to benefit our understanding of trout movement 

patterns. 

Response to review comment concerning using otolith chemistry to resolve trout movement 

Otolith microchemistry has been useful for resolving some questions about native fish, 

particularly humpback chub’s providence and movement between river and tributary systems 

(Limburg et al. 2013). Water chemistry for certain tributaries differs sufficiently from the 

Colorado River; unfortunately, the suite of major, minor, and trace elements (Se, Pb, Zn, Ca, Ba, 

Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Rb, and SrSr) analyzed to date do not differ enough longitudinally along the 

water course to discriminate between water samples collected within the Colorado River 

mainstem itself (~ 400 km). Rainbow trout and the area of interest where this species resides is 

found between Glen Canyon Dam and downstream of the Little Colorado River. 

The lipid approach in element 9.3 could be powerful, but lipid storage probably is not the 

primary shift in resource allocation with trout size. Rather, the primary shift would like be 
toward gametes rather than somatic growth (including lipids). Thus, the prediction of 

differential allometry of lipids in small v large trout may not be valid as proposed. 

Response to review comment concerning using lipid analysis to resolve short-term growth 

Energy allocation strategies in teleost fish are complex and often include tradeoffs among 

somatic growth and reproduction, which can differ among fish species. For trout and other 

salmonid species, research has shown that adults do invest a significant amount of energy into 

reproduction as they grow larger (Jonsson and Jonsson 2003, Manor et al. 2012); however, the 

allometric relationship between lipid mass and body size in rainbow trout remains, even though 

body protein, water, and ash exhibit isometric growth as a fish gains body mass (Dumas et al. 

2007). This allometric pattern in lipid deposition occurs in rainbow trout to a body mass of 

~400g, after which lipid mass continues to increase allometrically, albeit at a slower rate (Dumas 

et al. 2007). For context, a 400g fish in Lees Ferry would measure approximately 362mm (14.2 

inches); over the past two decades, the average size of rainbow trout in Lees Ferry was 257mm 

and 218g. Other researchers have verified that this allometric relationship exists for rainbow 

trout and other salmonid species such as brown trout and Atlantic salmon at various life history 

stages (Weatherley and Gill 1983, Jonsson and Jonsson 1998, Post and Parkinson 2001, 

Simpkins et al. 2003). 

Further, investment of energy reserves into gametes would not result in a decrease in total body 

lipid mass until after the reproductive season in mature adults. We hypothesize that postreproductive energy stores in adult rainbow trout will be lower relative to juveniles or mature 

trout that skip spawn. Nonetheless, rapid energy accumulation post-reproduction should occur 

due to high densities of drifting invertebrates in early summer that coincide with clear water 

conditions. Therefore, we would expect to see a natural decline in adult lipid reserves in the 

spring (post-reproduction) followed by a rapid accumulation of fat stores in summer and fall 

coincident with higher primary and secondary production, which is a phenomenon shared by 

many temperate fishes in preparation for winter survival. 

The lab studies of turbidity effects in element 9.6 will be very useful, but under field conditions 

can differences in detection distance overcome density- dependent encounter rates and sizedependent detection rates? The literature values could provide a rough answer to that question 

prior to doing the work of lab manipulations. 

Response to review comment concerning using lab studies to evaluate turbidity effects 

The reviewer is correct that biotic factors like fish density and size structure are likely to 

influence encounter rates between fish. However it remains uncertain whether or not changes in 

physical factors like turbidity interact to reduce or increase individual detection rates under 

varying fish densities or size-class distributions. Although this is an interesting ecological 

question, it still remains uncertain and is beyond the scope of this study. Under the current 

structure of our sampling design we will attempt where possible to address some of these 
questions. However, environmental conditions in the field are often more variable than what can 

be simulated in a laboratory setting and sometimes by inducing levels of complexity similar to 

field conditions compromises the capabilities of a lab because of the number trials, time, and 

monies available to complete these studies. 

The conception of project element 9.5 was proposed to act as a companion study for 9.6 to 

evaluate the literature by conducting an extensive metadata analysis on published detection 

(reactive) distance relationships (refer to 9.5). Preliminary analysis would indicate that most of 

the past laboratory studies have used turbidity as a surrogate metric for light intensity levels 

because of its light attenuating characteristics. Because turbidity is directly influenced by particle 

size, shape, and concentration, equivalent turbidity levels between different river systems does 

not equate to similar sediment or light attenuating characteristics (Davies-Colley and others, 

2003). Unlike most laboratory studies, other physical variables (light, NTU, concentration levels) 

are to be concurrently collected and the relationships developed will be specific for this system. 

Similarly, for comparing different tailwaters, can all the other factors which differ be controlled 

for to allow strong inferences about the effects of temperature or other factors? 

Response to review comment concerning tailwater synthesis 

The first analysis associated with the tailwater synthesis project identified hydrologic and 

density-dependent factors that influence the size of rainbow and brown trout in regulated rivers 

across the West. However, this analysis was limited by the availability of high-quality 

temperature data because many federal and state water gages do not have the capability to 

measure temperature on a subdaily basis. Further, we were only able to establish correlations 

between fish size and the other factors across a large number of dams by using mixed effects 

models and a multi-level R2 analysis. In the FY15-17 workplan, we plan to take this analysis 

further by using only data from systems with long-term fish, flow, foodbase, and temperature 

data. This next set of analyses will apply to a smaller population of tailwaters, but will be more 

rigorous...”Stronger inferences” will require controlled experiments. 

Additional References used 

Davies-Colley, R. J., Vant, W. N., and Smith, D. G., 2003, Colour and clarity of natural water: 

Science and management of optical water quality, The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey, 

USA. 

Dumas, A., C. F. M. de Lange, J. France, and D. P. Bureau. 2007. Quantitative description of body 

composition and rates of nutrient deposition in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 

Aquaculture 273:165-181. 

Jonsson, N. and B. Jonsson. 1998. Body composition and energy allocation in life-history stages of 

brown trout. Journal of Fish Biology 53:1306-1316. 

Jonsson, N. and B. Jonsson. 2003. Energy allocation among developmental stages, age groups, and 

types of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) spawners. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 60:506-516. 
Manor, M. L., G. M. Weber, M. Salem, J. Yao, A. Aussanasuwannakul, and P. B. Kenney. 2012. 

Effect of sexual maturation and triploidy on chemical composition and fatty acid content of 

energy stores in female rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture 364–365:312-321. 

Post, J. R. and E. A. Parkinson. 2001. Energy Allocation Strategy in Young Fish: Allometry and 

Survival. Ecology 82:1040-1051. 

Simpkins, D. G., W. A. Hubert, C. M. Del Rio, and D. C. Rule. 2003. Physiological Responses of 

Juvenile Rainbow Trout to Fasting and Swimming Activity: Effects on Body Composition and 

Condition Indices. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:576-589. 

Weatherley, A. H. and H. S. Gill. 1983. Protein, lipid, water and caloric contents of immature 

rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson, growing at different rates. Journal of Fish Biology 

23:653-673. 

 Project 10. Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow 

trout tailwater fishery end? - Integrating Fish and Channel 

Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam 

Responses to reviewer comments 

Science Advisor Review Comments: 

Comment Project 10: The project focuses on Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater 

fishery. This project nicely integrates information from other projects (2, 3, 9) together to 

address the issue of where does the trout tailwater fishery end. The project will evaluate select 

shoreline sites at flows below 8000 cfs in Glen and Marble Canyon to provide to ecologists 

evaluating food base definitive information of channel geometry and bed grain size. The project 

has been discussed by GCMRC at two TWG meetings and results from stakeholder requests for 

assessments. Introduction of rainbow trout in this system has been a huge success, which now is 

sometimes expressed as a curse of riches. Biotic and socioeconomic issues surround 

management of the RBT. The project proposes a novel and potentially important approach to 

building a bridge between the detailed studies of river sediment particles and those that change 

habitats and productivity in support of desirable ecological conditions. Restated, this means that 

in developing the adaptive management approach at the GCe scale, there is need for more than 

sole attention to building beaches for campers. Before the dam, there was a very large annual 

flood. Now there are the realities of diurnal and seasonal flow fluctuations plus those of the 

weather, and the HFE’s that have shoreline effects analogous to sending a tornado down the 

canyon. So how can things change in ways that benefit food web interactions? In other words, 

what ecological benefits would develop if there were little or no HFEs for a significant period of 

time? This echoes the voice of conservationists in support of stable flow conditions and that 

recognizes climate change as an ominous reality. The scientists have the capacity to estimate 

hypsometric flow inundation effects. Unfortunately, I wonder if they have changed things with 

many HFE’s in ways that do not provide a baseline condition. In ecosystem studies, these are 

known as reference or control systems that develop during time of the Holocene. It may take 

some time to build a reference condition that creates the habitat required to enhance life histories 

of the invertebrates, etc. If they succeed, fishes will eventually find the prey resources. If gravel 
conditions develop to the point where fishes will spawn successfully, then monitoring efforts 

might provide evidence of success. The comparative study proposed by Project 9, and perhaps 

the drift study offered by Project 5, could offer some guidance in planning derived from tailwater sites where a regular pattern of seasonal or daily fluctuations has a history different from 

that of the GCe events and HFE effects. The SAs strongly endorse the potential learning from 

this unique project. If the project scientists implement strong collaboration in data gathering 

stages and design with Project 5, 9, 11 and especially 12 scientists, it would offer the type of 

opportunities in science and management integration that can advance science and learning at a 

much more rapid rate. Mother Nature has a time clock that is modified on an evolutionary scale 

with internal sensitivity to ecological interactions. That’s how the GCe operated before the 

Anthropocene before when Glen Canyon Dam was constructed and the march of invasive 

species began. 

Response: The support and encouragement of the Science Advisors for this new proposed 

project is appreciated greatly. In their comments, they make several points and raise a few 

questions that are quite important. Regarding the reviewer concerns about the desire/need for 

establishing a “reference” condition for the channel, one possibility for establishing a “baseline 

condition” for assessing the 2012-16 trout abundance/distribution in Glen, Marble and Grand 

Canyon segments – the issue that the reviewer appears to be concerned about - could be 

addressed by using the available SEP 2000 towed sidescan sonar imagery within the Natal Origin 

(Project 9) study reaches. These imagery data are included in Table 1 of the project description 

and may provide some relative context for bed sediment grain size conditions. Earlier imagery 

may also still be available that was collected in fall 1984, but both of these imagery data sets 

were collected following periods of high-flow releases that likely significantly altered the 

distribution of finer sediment on the channel bed, so that a true “reference” condition for the 

deeper channel habitats may not be possible except in the Glen Canyon segment where 

topography and bed-sediment grain size conditions were documented by Reclamation in the 

1950s. The information from those early studies prior to dam construction were documented by 

Pemberton and others, and have fortunately been compiled and published by Grams and others 

(2007), at least for the Glen Canyon tailwater segment between the dam and Lees Ferry. We 

intend to use those data as the project’s baseline condition in NO reach #1, where most trout 

production has been occurring and has been documented since dam operations were modified in 

the 1990s. 

Reviewer Recommendations 

Comment Projects 9 and 10: These projects present the continued monitoring efforts and 

related research on factors that can induce variances in populations of the sports fishery resource 

and new investigations on implications of lower flows to critical reproduction habitats, and 

potentials for downriver migrations and establishment of new populations. This program is 

important to its contributions in maintaining a healthy sports fishery, but also to greater 

understanding of these populations ability to transition downstream and impose greater threats to 

native species in the system. The science advisors feel that significant improvements have 

occurred in interdisciplinary cooperation and integration of the monitoring and science across 

programs. Project 10 exemplifies this shift. However, we also note areas where it might be 

improved. Even where that collaborative process was not mentioned it is intuitive from the list 
of scientists involved in each project. We support this trend and encourage continuation in the 

future. 

Response: Every attempt will be made to coordinate closely with the researchers leading 

elements of Project 9, as well as others working on Project 5. Although no specific 

collaborations are included in the project description with Projects 11 and 12, the outcomes of 

those research efforts will be considered in planning the proposed 2017 synthesis workshop and 

results from those projects will be included in syntheses as possible and appropriate. 

Project 11. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis 

of Riparian Vegetation, Landform Change and AquaticTerrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities 

John Spence, Glen Canyon NRA 

9 June 2014 

I have focused my review on the vegetation and wildlife sections under Project No. 11, based on 

my educational background and field experience. In general, I think the sections I have reviewed 

would benefit from objective reviews by outside plant community ecologists and ecological 

statisticians, including appropriate academic researchers. I am reviewing this under the 

assumption that this is either happening or will be happening prior to finalizing the long-term 

plan. Thus my review is general in nature and raises general issues about sampling design, scale, 

and other monitoring-related concerns. 

Project 11. 

Comment: The Introduction talks about using 20 pre-selected sand bar complexes as the basis 

for the proposed vegetation work. However, later in PE 11.1 other settings (channel margins, 

randomly placed sites) are mentioned. This is a little confusing. It would be useful to have a 

table indicating which work will be done at which types of sites to help organize the section. 

Response: In the revised project description, we attempts to clarify the sampling sites and the 

approach for plot sampling in relation to river stage. 

Most of my review comments are on the ground-based vegetation sampling and avian projects. 

Project Element 11.1 

Comment: P. 106: Sand bars represent only a small portion of the river system and are not 

necessarily representative of much of the river corridor. Especially in the lower canyon much of 

the riparian vegetation and associated avifauna is not connected to sand bars. To the extent that 

work is focused on sand bars, inferences will not be possible for much of the system. There is 

some confusion for the reader as other geomorphic settings are also mentioned in the vegetation 
project, so it would help to better articulate the sampling framework and project elements vis-àvis specific geomorphological settings. 

Response: When the reviewer refers to the sand bars on p. 106, we assume that he is referring to 

the retrospective analysis – element 1.3. We agree that sand bars are only a small portion of the 

river systems, but these are sites that are the most dynamic and where the greatest amount of 

physical and image data are available to permit a retrospective analysis of vegetation change 

relative to annual hydrology, stage discharge and changes in elevation. Though they are a minor 

component of the river corridor, sand bars play a large role in campsite availability and the 

recreational experience. In the revised project description for 11.1., we provide a table that 

attempts to clarify the sampling sites and clarified the language describing the framework within 

the descriptive paragraphs. 

Comment: P 107: The response guild approach is interesting, but the concept is still somewhat 

theoretical and may be difficult to apply at the scale of the river corridor and with the mix of 

riparian species present. Although draft “guilds” can likely be developed, there is always the 

potential problem that species respond individualistically to various environmental predictors. 

Further, the same species may be classified in different types of guilds depending on whether one 

is looking at limiting factors, disturbances, resources, etc. I would like to see a much better 

articulation of how the theory is going to be used with ground-based vegetation data – in the 

TWP it is all pretty vague. This especially becomes a problem when polygons may have mixes 

of species with differing guild adaptations (see below). 

Response: We agree with the comment that delineation of guilds is very dependent on the 

variables chosen as well as the quantitative information available associated with the variable. 

With the recent addition of Daniel Sarr and Emily Palmquist to the group, positions that 

remained vacant for 2/3rds of the previous work plan we a making great advances associated 

with applying species values to chosen variables and documenting the process associated with 

variable selection and subsequent analytical steps that were used. We are currently working on a 

draft manuscript that describes this process and reviews the limitations and applicability of this 

approach. 

Comment: P. 109 (at the end of the section on fixed site sampling and also random sampling): 

The most serious concern I have is how the ground-based vegetation sampling will be done. The 

two chosen measures seem to be canopy cover and species presence. There are several issues 

that need to be better resolved in the TWP in order to answer concerns about repeatability, 

accuracy, precision, scale and appropriate performance measures. These are reviewed below. 

1. Repeatability, accuracy and precision: canopy cover and richness can be measured in a variety 

of ways, but most are extremely subjective and sensitive to observer errors. Canopy cover visual 

estimation in particular is extremely difficult to collect in an objective manner, and is not very 

repeatable. There are many ways around this, such as using point counts along transects, frames 

with pins, intercept sampling, etc. yet there is no mention of how canopy cover data is going to 

be collected, and how this problem is going to be resolved. Without understanding the quality of 
the data collected it begs the question as to whether the data can be used to make informed 

management decisions. 

Response: In the revised project description we provide a table that attempts to clarify the 

sampling sites and we provide more detail about the approach for plot sampling in relation to 

inundation frequency and repeatability. In FY15 we will be developing a written protocol for 

subsequent review that discusses minimum sample size, scale, and accuracy and precision as it 

pertains to monitoring and informing resource managers. 

Comment: 2. Scale: Scale issues are critical to both sampling and to species diversity (including 

presence/absence). The use of 1-meter quadrats is fraught with problems of scale. Originally, in 

the European schools of vegetation ecology this size was recommended primarily for lowgrowing herbaceous vegetation, not for riparian shrubs. Species richness in particular is strongly 

affected by sampling pattern and size (quadrats, plots, shape of plot, etc.). In general, the larger 

the plant species, the larger the plot size required for sampling. For tall shrubs a typical size 

would be 25-100 m2

. The modified Whittaker plot approach is one available method, but is 

somewhat time intensive. Simpler circular or rectangular plots scaled for different growth forms 

would be appropriate. Use of a 1-meter quadrat for anything larger than low shrubs should not be 

done when sampling vegetation. Part of the issue with scale relates also to the pattern in the 

vegetation, i.e., how individuals are spaced with respect to each other. An excellent discussion of 

the issues around these concepts and various tests and solutions can be found in Grieg-Smith 

(1983: Quantitative Plant Ecology, 3rd Ed.). A clear analysis and articulation of the sampling 

methodology, the pros and cons of the selected methods, repeatability, precision, accuracy and 

scale are critical to development of any long-term vegetation monitoring program. 

Response: We agree that estimating canopy cover for taller woody species is problematic. We 

are exploring other options to estimate this value. A majority of the riparian species encountered 

along the river corridor are forbs, grasses and shrubs for which a 1-meter square plot is 

sufficient. Further, the 1-meter plot samples is effective in sampling seedlings and samplings of 

woody species while taller/older woody species above a meter tall would be captured in the 

landscape scale vegetation mapping effort. In FY15 we will develop a written protocol for 

subsequent review that discusses minimum sample size, scale, and accuracy and precision as it 

pertains to monitoring and informing resource managers. 

Comment: 3. Performance measure: the most commonly used measure of taller (>2 m) woody 

species performance is not canopy cover, rather it is stem density and DBH, usually in plots that 

are appropriately scaled to the stature of the species (larger trees = bigger plots), as well as the 

individual plant spacing. Canopy cover cannot be accurately measured using subjective ocular 

estimation. Other methods are preferable based on logistical constraints. These include use of a 

light meter or other device to capture leaf interception (e.g., spherical densitometer; the idea 

being calculation of some type of eaf area against the sky background), the Total Vegetation 

Volume (TVV) method, or sampling stem density and size in belt transects or other plots. 

Response: We agree that estimating canopy cover for taller woody species is problematic. We 

are exploring other options to estimate this value. We also supplement the ground-based 
sampling with vegetation mapping at approximately a 5-year interval. The landscape scale 

vegetation mapping provides information about changes in tall woody species to compensate for 

the short-comings of plot sampling. The 1-meter plot samples is effective in sampling seedlings 

and samplings of woody species while taller/older individuals above a meter tall would be 

captured in the landscape scale vegetation mapping effort. 

Comment: P. 110: Table 2 – what does PI stand for? 

Response: This is a typo, we have removed it. 

Comment: P. 111: Collection of species richness, and in general presence/absence is affected by 

scale and phenological considerations. Using small quadrats (randomly or fixed) will miss many 

species. Some analysis of scale dependency and sampling intensity should be included based on 

already collected pilot data that can be used to determine when sites are adequately sampled. PCORD has a method that uses jackknife estimation that is easy to implement. 

Response: We agree that this is a matter that needs to be discussed in a monitoring document 

that details the methods and discusses the ability to detect change. In FY15 we will develop a 

written protocol for subsequent review that discusses minimum sample size, scale, and accuracy 

and precision as it pertains to monitoring and informing resource managers. 

Comment: P. 113-114: for response guilds, the following comments are relevant to all project 

elements. 

1. Presumably polygons are composed of several species, sometimes in mixture and sometimes 

as mostly single dominants. In the former I think it might be difficult to assign a single guild 

designation if several species are present and common. For example, Salix exigua is not likely to 

be in the same response guild as tamarisk on many settings, yet they often co-occur. Phragmites

and Typha are very different in their adaptations to hydrologic variables, but also often co-occur. 

Response: We agree that individuals from separate guilds can co-occur on a location on the 

landscape. They represent individual species responses to hydrologic events or other factors that 

might promote species recruitment. The intent of the guild is to determine which species within 

a guild may occur more frequently within a particular hydrologic setting. For example, if the 

frequency of Phragmites (from plot data) occurring along the channel just above the stage of 

daily inundation is greater than the frequency of occurrence of Typha at time X +1 and that 

frequency has increases since X then one might infer reduced hydrology or increased 

disturbance. The frequency of other species associated with particular guilds can assist in 

identifying vegetation response as a whole as well as single species responses. 

Comment: 2. Given that we are looking at complex variations (gradients) in several hydrologic 

responses across different scales (individual, population, etc. – see Merritt et al. Table 1), it 

becomes extremely important that the appropriate variables (water potential, leaf size, root 

architecture, etc.) are selected as well as the response variables, whether flooding disturbance, 

sediment grain size, resource limitations, etc. It is highly likely that a single species may respond 

very differently depending on what variable is being studied. I think that this aspect of the TWP 

needs to be carefully analyzed with working hypotheses and conceptual models of predicted 
responses to be developed, reviewed and refined. Currently, nothing is explained in the TWP on 

how this approach is going to be used to benefit long-term monitoring and understanding of 

riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, I think that making the attempt is worthwhile 

as it could provide a valuable test of the approach in a large-scale complex system. 

Response: We agree with the comment that delineation of guilds is very dependent on the 

variables chosen as well as the quantitative information available associated with the variable. 

With the recent addition of Daniel Sarr and Emily Palmquist to the group, positions that 

remained vacant for 2/3rds of the previous work plan, we are making great advances associated 

with applying species values to chosen variables and documenting the process associated with 

variable selection and subsequent analytical steps that were used. We are currently working on a 

draft manuscript that describes this process as well as reviews the limitations and applicability of 

this approach along other stretches of the Colorado River and its tributaries. Within the TWP we 

had added more detail regarding the variables chosen that analyses used to address the concerns 

of the review’s comments. 

Project Element 11.2 

This element looks appropriate, methodology and objectives seem reasonable. 

Comment: P. 113: for some riparian vegetation I think that a one species-one image pixel 

(polygon) will not work very well. This needs to be tested with pilot data. There are ways to get 

around potential problems using some combination of species correlation analysis, such as pairwise approaches, to develop species combinations (or perhaps more species) that co-occur. 

However, this issue may be less of a problem with respect to response guilds, as these tend to 

integrate several species in a pixel showing presumably similar adaptations. However, with 

multi-canopy vegetation there will still be some cross-walk issues to solve. 

Response: We agree that the one-species –one image pixel does not work very well for 4-band 

imagery. The approach for final analysis is elaborated here for the benefit of the reviewer. We 

did not change the text in the workplan. Once total vegetation is segregated in the 2013 image 

data set (anticipated by or before summer 2016), a most-likely vegetation species will be 

assigned to each image pixel based on reflectance angle. Spectral un-mixing of individual pixels 

is not a priority for final analysis. Given that pixel reflectance will likely represent multiple 

species in densely vegetated areas, mapping will focus on the response guild and association 

levels (categories of classification within the National Vegetation Classification Standard 

(FGDC, 2008)). The spectral band quality of the 2013 imagery are different from previous 

overflight acquisitions in terms of dynamic range, consistency, and accuracy and, therefore, the 

level of the final vegetation map for this database will not be known until the species 

classification is completed. Species classification will be accomplished using the following 

information, in order of preference: (1) ground observations that were collected in August and 

September 2013; (2) ground-truth site observations that occurred during other image 

acquisitions, where it is determined by visual examination of the periodic images that certain 

vegetation is the same in the image data being analyzed; and (3) our previously collected groundreflectance database for the common vegetation species within the canyon. Image classification 
will proceed in 8-km increments progressing downstream in the river corridor from Glen Canyon 

Dam, because vegetation composition and the spectral properties of species gradually change 

downstream." 

Project Element 11.3 

Comment: Some of the same issues found in sampling in 11.1 are relevant in this project. Also, 

the methodology seems to make the assumption that response guilds for riparian woody 

vegetation will be used as they form the basis of the sampling approach. But what if they don’t 

work? 

Response: We are confident that from the plot data collected on sandbars in 2012, 2013, and 

2014 and stage-discharge information for the sandbars, we can create exceedance probability 

curves subsequently create probability of occurrence surfaces for guilds. This approach was used 

to project vegetation response under future flow scenario (Merritt and others, 2010; Merritt and 

Bateman, 2012). We would be taking a similar approach to validate hypotheses about species 

and guild response to changes in annual hydrology. 

Project Element 11.4 

Comment: In general, bird species respond to a variety of factors including those on wintering 

grounds, migratory corridors and breeding grounds. Thus changes in riparian habitat for 

breeding riparian species is only one aspect of a larger complex story of change. Previous power 

analysis has shown that most species cannot be monitored in this system without significant 

expenditures and timeframes. 

Short of intensive sampling, there seem to be several ways these issues could be resolved. These 

include presence/absence (occupancy theory), guild approaches, or using selected common

permanent residents that are restricted to riparian vegetation. Occupancy theory is a promising 

new way to look at changes in bird distributions, and is generally easier to do than sampling 

using intensive point count and distance estimation methods. However, this approach would best 

be done using a relatively large subset of the river corridor, and sample sizes approaching 40-50 

or more. To use the Glen Canyon reach, as suggested in the methods, is simply too limited for 

this approach, as there are at best 10-15 independent locations that could be used. 

Another issue is what exactly do bird species respond to in their habitat? This will likely vary, 

from responses based on available nest cavities (ash-throated flycatcher) to canopy volume and 

cover/density (many insectivores), to particular food items (phainopeplas). However, bird 

populations are usually not controlled by canopy cover per se, rather vegetation structure, 

volume and in some cases particular plant species are important. In the 1996-2000 program 

Total Vegetation Volume was used as a measure of habitat structure/complexity. Something like 

this will need to be repeated if contrasts with those data sets are going to be made. 

I would encourage the use of occupancy methods for looking at changes in distribution for 

riparian bird and other selected animals species, focusing on those restricted to the riparian 

zones. 
Response: We agree with many of the comments and insights provided by the reviewer. The 

initial phase of this project is the development of a conceptual framework as well as sampling 

design development to develop the best approach for sampling to detect trends. 

Literature cited. 

Merritt, D.M., Bateman, H.L., Peltz, C.D., 2010, Instream flow requirements for maintenance of 

wildlife habitat and riparian vegetation: Cherry Creek, Tonto National Forest, Arizona. US 

Forest Service report Arizona. Report to Arizona Division of Water Resources. 87pp. 

Merritt, D.M., Bateman, H.L., 2012. Linking stream flow and groundwater to avian habitat in a 

desert riparian stream. Ecological Applications, 22: 1973-1988. 

Project 12. Dam-Related Effects on the Distribution and 

Abundance of Selected Culturally-Important Plants in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem 

Responses to comments re: Project 12 

Comments from L.D. Garret (Executive Coordinator, Science Advisors) to Jack Schmidt 

(Chief, GCMRC) in a letter dated June 29, 2014, 

Comments from Grand Canyon National Park Staff to Jack Schmidt in an attachment to 

an email dated July 7, 2014 and 

Comments from K. Dongoske (Chair of the Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Committee) to the 

TWG dated July 14, 2014 

Responses Prepared by H. Fairley, Sociocultural Program Manager, GCMRC 

SCIENCE ADVISOR COMMENTS 

Comment: In regards to past GCMRC plans that we have reviewed, this is clearly the most 

professional presentation of science projects. Of the project presentations, there are only two 

which we feel should be rewritten before you resubmit the Plan. The science ideals are 

supported by the SAs, but unfortunately Projects 4 and 12 simply do not demonstrate appropriate 

science standards in defining and justifying the science approach, presenting appropriate science 

design, and clarifying data development and assessments. Because of these issues some concern 

exists if expenditure of funds might best be directed at other cultural management needs or to 

other science projects. 

Response: We appreciate the review provided by Science Advisors of Project 12. Please see the 

remainder of this document which contains our detailed response to specific review comments. 

We have revised the proposal for Project 12 in response to Science Advisor comments, as well as 

a review from the GRCA Cultural Resources staff, and written recommendations from the 

CRAHG. 
Comment: This project evaluates dam effects on distribution of culturally important plants. This 

is an important step in science toward policy issues related to tribal traditions and culture, i.e. 

plants deemed important to Tribes for reasons related to religion, traditions, and culture. 

Response: We agree that this is an important topic and appreciate the recognition from the 

Science Advisors that this project constitutes an important step in science toward policy issues 

related to tribal traditions and culture. 

Comment: There does not seem to be a plant scientist on this team as one of the Investigators. 

That would seem be important given the basic science questions being asked. However, this 

project seems to reflect the interest of tribal members in understanding dam management impacts 

to plant resources of specific importance to tribal members. 

Response: Although the Project PI is not a plant expert, plant identification has always been part 

of her field work, and she has taken courses in the subject, including a Native Plants of the 

Southwest identification course. Nonetheless, we agree that having additional riparian plant 

expertise on this project would be beneficial; therefore, we have added a riparian ecologist to the 

team, and we have also added a biostatistician, in response to this and similar comments received 

from the Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Committee. 

Comment: We are not convinced this project is specified effectively and there are several 

problems with this project that need to be addressed. First, one of the leading scientists is also 

working intensively on Project 4 and it difficult to see how effectively she will be able to do both 

especially since both projects seem to have critical design problems. 

Response: We appreciate the Science Advisors concern with the project lead’s time been spread 

over more than just one project. With a reduced scope of work now proposed for Project 12, and 

with the addition of a riparian ecologist and biostatistician to the project team, we believe the 

first issue has been satisfactorily addressed. With regards to the issue of “project specification”, 

in the May draft of the project proposal, we deliberately avoided being specific about 

methodologies because we anticipated a need to have further discussions with tribal participants 

to refine methods prior to initiating in-depth research involving tribal members; therefore we did 

not want to be perceived as having made these decisions in advance of discussing and refining 

these details with the tribal participants. During recent discussions with CRAHG members. 

Tribal participants reconfirmed their desire to discuss and review the results of the workshops 

and initial data compilation and synthesis prior to determining final methods for eliciting tribal 

value information in Part 12.2 Therefore, in the revised proposal, we are more explicit about 

this plan and the need for further discussion with tribal stakeholders before specifying methods 

more precisely. We have also added some more details about some possible approaches that 

may be used to elicit tribal values information in the future. 

Comment: Second, the project is severely under budgeted in terms of both time and funding. 

For example, in one day, the list of plants that are of significance to tribes will be 

identified. Even given the use of prior research this is impossible to do thoroughly in one day 

(and will condition everything that follows in terms of data collection and management 

recommendations). 
Response: In the original proposal we did not include sufficient background detail which, in 

retrospect, might have alleviated this, and some other, Science Advisors concerns. For example, 

several of the tribes who are participating in this project previously were funded through the 

GCDAMP to develop comprehensive ethno-botanical inventories. These inventories have 

already documented the majority of plants in the river corridor that are of cultural interest to each 

tribe. Therefore, there is already a solid foundation for developing a list of species of mutual 

interest to multiple tribes. A part of the proposal that was not explicitly described in the first 

draft was the plan to compile existing ethnobotanical information in advance of the workshop 

and use these existing ethnobotanical inventories as a starting point for the workshop 

discussions. Nonetheless, we agree that a one-day workshop is less than ideal and therefore, in 

the revised proposal we have expanded the scope of the first workshop to include one extra day 

and have added a second workshop for follow up on the results of the first year of data 

compilation and analysis. 

Comment: Third, there is little reference to the anthropological literature on TEK that could be 

used to help guide the research. 

Response: In the revised proposal, we have substantially expanded the background discussion to 

include more information about ethnoecology, TEK, and landscape ecology, and we describe 

how these various sub-disciplines can and do inform the current project proposal. 

Comment: Fourth, although the methods proposed include a mix of qualitative and semi‐

quantitative approaches it would seem possible for project members to collaborate closely with 

the collection of quantitative data to be collected in the vegetation assessment program (Project 

11). This would further the goal of incorporating more TEK in all of the scientific projects, but 

would also provide explicit data sharing and discussion of plant community and individual plant 

distribution changes. The use of citizen scientists in documenting plants and their distribution, as 

used in Projects 3 and 5, for example, would be exemplary. There is a lost opportunity in this 

project to use multiple sources of data for analysis for what is an extremely important 

management issues. 

Response: As briefly stated in the original Project 12 proposal (but now more thoroughly and 

clearly described in the revised proposal), we intend to glean and synthesize as much information 

as possible from as many available sources as possible, including previous GCES-era research 

projects, past and current GCMRC research and monitoring data (including specifically Project 

11 data), tribal monitoring data, previous ethnoobotantical surveys, the Hualapai Tribes’ current 

pilot TEK project, and historical imagery. We are unclear as to what the Science Advisors might 

be thinking in terms of using citizen scientists in this project, beyond the tribal participants 

already included. Certainly reliable plant identification is not something that can easily handedoff to someone who does not have some previous background in plant identification. 

Nevertheless, we are open to suggestions for using citizen scientists in this and other GCMRC 

projects, as appropriate, and will include a discussion of the potential for using citizen science 

information during the first workshop. 

Comment: Cutting this project completely is unacceptable, however, because it is the only one 

that explicitly includes tribes in the research, and is one of only two that explicitly addresses 

cultural resources. However, concern exists that appropriate science methodology are absent 

from both project 4 and 12 which are led by the same specialist. 
Response: The Science Advisors are misinformed concerning who is leading Projects 4 and 12. 

Joel Sankey is designated as the lead scientist for Project 4, while Fairley is leading Project 12. 

With regards to concerns about the science methodology proposed for Project 4, please refer to 

Sankey’s responses re: Project 4. See responses above and below concerning methodological 

comments re: Project 12. 

Comment:We make several specific recommendations with respect to this plan to make it more 

doable as well as to ensure future duplication of effort. 

First, the project should take into account both plants and animals. 

Response: We disagree with this recommendation, not because animals are not an important and 

highly valued component of Tribal TCPs and the riparian ecosystems but because including 

animals is beyond the current scope and budget of Project 12. With the exception of fish, and 

increasingly aquatic insects, data on the historical distributions/abundances of animals in the 

river corridor is patchy and more variable than the available plant information; furthermore, the 

available animal data does not lend itself to the types of analyses and assessments proposed for 

Project 12. A discussion of animals and how to approach this topic from a tribal-values 

perspective in the future may be included during the second workshop. 

Comment: Second, because the project is undoable at the level of funding requested ($35K), 

these funds should be used instead to fund the first phase of the project— a pilot project to 

convene a series of meetings to come up with the list of plant and animal resources identified as 

important to the tribes. This should also include discussion and planning for the implementation 

of the documentation phase of the plants and animals and their historic and contemporary 

distributions. That planning should include ways of taking incorporating citizen science and 

tribal members. 

Response: We are concerned that the Science Advisors did not have the most up-to-date budget 

information when formulating their review comments. The $35,000 figure was first proposed for 

FY15 in the April work plan “prospectus”, but it was subsequently adjusted upward in the May 

version of the draft TWP. Nonetheless, we agree that the project has a very limited budget to 

accomplish a considerable amount of proposed work. Therefore, we have scaled back the project 

to be more of an exploratory pilot project, per recommendations of the SAs, although we still 

plan of conducting some analyses of available data in addition to hosting two workshops. 

Comment: In addition, that proposal should include ways of using existing and current data 

sources from other projects currently being conducted. 

Response: The use of existing data sources was part of the original proposal for this Project, 

although apparently this point was not emphasized sufficiently in the original proposal. The use 

of existing data from multiple sources is a central component of this project. This component is 

now more heavily emphasized in the revised proposal. 

Comment: Finally, this project will seemingly have significant difficulty establishing effect 

relationships, i.e. causation. In its rewrite perhaps a descriptive analysis should be considered 

instead. 
Response:The Science Advisors apparently misinterpreted the focus of Project 12 to be an 

effects analysis. This was never the intent of this project, and we have revised the proposal to 

make this point more explicit. A descriptive analysis of available information is emphasized in 

the revised proposal. 

GRCA Comments 

Comment: This project proposal looks interesting and solidly designed. The proposal states that 

" The biological changes resulting from Glen Canyon Dam's alteration of river hydrology 

(Topping and others, 2003) have not only affected individual species and habitats; they have also 

affected culturally-valued attributes of the landscape." Have the culturally-valued attributes of 

the landscape been previously identified to a point where there will be a nexus between the 

findings of this research and that statement? The research questions are quite good but the 

research focuses on areas around archaeological sites and TCPs. Are areas adjacent to beaches 

or other locations included? If not, it would be good to have an explanation of why specific sites 

have been or will be selected. 

Response: We appreciate these positive and helpful comments from GRCA staff. We believe 

that this project will help to further elucidate some of the tribally-valued cultural attributes of the 

river corridor landscape. The proposal has been revised to make this point more explicit. 

Project 12 does not focus on areas around archaeological sites but rather will focus on plants 

growing adjacent to the active river channel (past and present), so as to emphasize potential 

linkages between river hydrology and effects to cultural (tribal) values associated with the 

riparian landscape and ecosystem. We hope that this project will contribute to improving 

understanding of how landscape attributes, and specifically culturally-important plant species, 

contribute to tribal TCP values, and how those values may be affected by changes in vegetation 

that are potentially due, at least in part, to Glen Canyon Dam operations. 

CRAHG Comments 

Comment: CRAHG recommends moving forward with this project, but greatly expanding the 

role of the Tribes in identifying specific research avenues to be pursued. This will entail multiple 

Tribal workshops for the purposes of having the participating Tribes in collaboration with 

GCMRC design the structure of the research effort. The initial workshop would be followed by 

compilations and summarization of the data sources by GCMRC as envisioned in the FY 2015-

2017 TWP. A second workshop would then be convened with the Tribes to utilize the results of 

the data compilation to revise and further refine the research effort designed by the Tribes. This 

project would be a pilot project with an emphasis on exploring the productivity of utilizing 

historic imagery in Tribal monitoring programs. The CRAHG recommends investigating the 

benefits of integrating this project with GCMRC’s riparian program (Project 11) 

Response: The project12 proposal has been substantially revised in response to these comments 

from the CRAHG. The proposal now includes an expanded (two day) initial workshop, plus a 

second two day workshop that will follow after the first year of data compilation, analysis and 

synthesis. We have also revised the project description to further emphasize the point (which 

was included in the original draft but was not sufficiently emphasized) that there will be 

opportunities for additional tribal input prior to finalizing the methods to be used in part 12.2, 

and that the collection of data from tribal members will be led by tribal participants. 
Project 13. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research 

Project 13 Response to Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group’s Recommendations to the 

Technical Work Group Regarding the 2015-2017 Triennial Work Plan and Budget for the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

CRAHG Recommendations Prepared by Kurt Dongoske, CRAHG Chair 

Response Prepared by Lucas Bair, Economist, GCMRC 

Comment: Project 13.2. Tribal Perspectives for and Values of Resources Downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam: CRAHG expressed concern about this research effort and the potential to reduce 

Tribal cultural values to Western capitalistic terms, a value system applied to this ecosystem that 

is not shared by the Tribes. CRAHG recommends that GCMRC researchers need to have more 

in-depth conversations with the Tribes regarding this project during 2014-2015 before it is 

implemented. 

Response: GCMRC staff appreciate the recommendation of the Cultural Resource ad hoc Group 

and recognize the importance of research within the GCDAMP that distinguishes Tribal 

preferences for and economic value of resource management decisions from Tribal cultural 

values associated with Glen and Grand Canyons. To clearly develop methods identifying 

preference for and economic value of resource management decisions, and not inappropriately 

reduce non-economic Tribal cultural values to economic terms, the project team will have 

continued in-depth conversations with the Tribes regarding this project during FY 2015 and 

work closely with the Tribes in FY 2016-17 to implement the project and 1) review relevant 

previous studies and tribal programs; and 2) identify focus group participants and develop and 

pretest focus group survey content to ensure culturally appropriate methodology. 

Response to National Park Service’s Review of Project 13.2 of the 2015-2017 Triennial 

Work Plan and Budget for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Comments prepared by Martha Hahn and Janet Balsom, NPS 

Response Prepared by Lucas Bair, Economist, GCMRC 

Comment: It would be useful to clearly articulate the direct benefit of this project overall; you 

heard some concerns voiced at the TWG meeting a making a direct correlation of the benefits 

you envision would help with project support; it is interesting to me that this project is one from 

the SEAHG yet garnered little support at the meeting. 

Response: The benefit of Project 13.2 would be realized through improving decision processes 

in the GCDAMP. This is stated in section D.1, ‘Project Elements’, of the TBW. Additional text 

has been added to the TBW to further emphasize this point (added text underlined). 

The objective of this project element is to identify tribal preferences and values 

associated with management of resources downstream of GCD in order to inform 
decision making processes in the GCDAMP. Defining individual tribe’s preferred 

actions or constraints associated with management of downstream resources is 

important when evaluating potential actions and associated trade-offs. 

... 

Information gained through this research is necessary for evaluation of 

management decisions and development of applied decision methods that 

accommodate tribal preferences for and values of downstream resources (see 

FY15–17 Workplan, Project Element 13.3). 

For example, recognizing potential objections to economic valuation of humpback chub (i.e., 

stakeholder constraint), specific methods to evaluate the economic efficiency of management 

actions are proposed in Project 13.3. 

Cost-effectiveness analysis...identifies the least cost alternative, when faced with 

competing or complimentary management actions, to reach a defined objective. 

This...is important because it...removes the onerous, or in some cases 

contentious, identification of economic value of downstream resources. The focus 

is shifted from establishing the benefit of the objective to identifying the most 

cost-effective way to meet the objective (Sagoff, 2009). This is an important 

distinction when stakeholders may fundamentally reject attempts to economically 

value aspect of ecosystem resources. 

This is one example, and further understanding of Tribal preferences for and value of 

management actions (or outright objections to) only improve the framing of decision process 

within the GCDAMP. 

Comment: The project personnel may not be well suited to conducting the tribal focus groups; 

there needs to be considerable coordination with the tribal groups in order to design a program 

that will meet the needs expressed. 

Response: Project personnel have several decades experience working with tribes and choice 

experiments. The project personnel from University of Montana have worked with the Penobscot 

, Hopi, Salish Kootenai, Kalispell, Spokane, Yuma, Elem Pomo, Klamath, Blackfeet, Ute 

Mountain Ute, and Metis Tribes on a variety of natural resource economics studies. 

Considerable coordination with tribal groups will occur in order to design a program that will 

meet the needs expressed. As mentioned in the TBW, the project team will “cooperate with 

GCDAMP Tribal representatives and Tribal members to review previous studies and tribal 

programs relating to tribal preferences for and values of resources downstream of GCD; conduct 

initial meetings with individual tribes to identify focus group participants and develop and 

pretest focus group survey content to ensure culturally appropriate methodology; and conduct 

focus group meetings with individual Tribal members to explore preferences for and values of 

downstream resources. 

 
Comment: At a minimum this project should include a tribal representative on the research 

team. 

Response: The project team will coordinate project development with Tribal representatives, 

councils, and staff. The coordination will provide overall project direction and review with 

minimal workload requirements from Tribal representatives, councils, or staff. 

Comment: #2 of the Individual Project Elements is to "Conduct initial meetings with individual 

tribes to obtain permission and gauge interest in participation, identify focus group participants, 

and develop and pretest focus group survey content to ensure culturally appropriate 

methodology. What if tribes don't give permission or are not interested? These are things that 

should be pursued BEFORE a project like this is submitted or approved. #3 talks about the focus 

groups strategy but there is not a good discussion or rationale for this methodology. Again, a 

tribal partner could and should help design this project. 

Response: Tribal council permission for the proposed project will require prior coordination 

with tribal representatives and staff. This coordination will include review of previous studies 

and tribal programs to establish the tribal specific methods of the research. Therefore, the project 

must be approved by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) prior 

to formal approval from each tribe. 

Final survey methods will be determined following coordination with individual tribes. Text 

has been added to section D.1, ‘Project Elements’ to clarify that other methods used to 

implement surveys may be employed following coordination with the tribes. 

Focus groups provide an open forum for clarifying survey methods and 

participant questions. However, in-person, mail or alternative survey methods will 

be used if individual tribes discourage the use of focus groups. 

The project team will coordinate research with Tribal representatives, councils, and staff. The 

coordination will provide overall project direction and review with minimal workload 

requirements from Tribal representatives, councils, and staff. 

Comment: The proposal references 'partnership with the tribes' but they are clearly not partners 

but rather research subjects. 

Response: The project team will coordinate research with Tribal representatives, councils, and 

staff. The coordination will provide overall project direction and review with minimal workload 

requirements from Tribal representatives, councils, or staff. The language in the TBW has been 

changed, from “in partnership with” to “in coordination with”, to reflect this. 

Comment: There is not a clear indication of what 'downstream resources' are being discussed or 

if those are resources the tribes will specifically identify. 

Response: Resources will be identified with the cooperation of the Tribes. This is clarified in 

section D.1, ‘Project Elements’, of the TBW (added text underlined). 

For the choice experiment methods, downstream resource attributes of tribal 

importance (e.g., hydropower, humpback chub) and their potential variation with 
different future management actions will be defined in task 2 and will shape the 

experimental design. 

Comment: There is not a clear method to achieve the objective to " identify tribal preferences 

and values' some of which seem to be predetermined in the hypotheses 

Response: The objective of the project is to identify statistically significant differences in the 

relative preferences or economic values placed on resources of importance, when trade-offs 

occur due to operations at Glen Canyon Dam. The hypothesis, as written, are standard format 

when proposing such statistical analysis. 

Choice experiment methods will be used to achieve the research objective. This is stated in 

section D.1, ‘Project Elements’ in the TBW. 

The assessment of tribal preferences and values will be achieved through focus 

group meetings with individual tribes, where choice experiment methods will be 

conducted to explicitly evaluate resource attributes tradeoffs that occur from 

management of GCD. 

The meetings will use choice experiment methods (Breffle and Rowe, 2002; 

Harpman, 2008), which are commonly applied in marketing and resource 

economics studies, to identify these preferences and values. 

See Harpman (2008) for a detailed explanation of choice experiments (i.e., conjoint analysis). 

Harpman, David A. 2008. Introduction to Conjoint Analysis for Valuing Ecosystem Amenities. 

Bureau of Reclamation Technical Memorandum Number EC-2008-03. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, Colorado. February 2008. 46 pages. 

Comment: There is nothing that I can identify in the budget to compensate tribal participants for 

any of their participation. 

Response: The line item “operating expenses” in the 2016 fiscal year totals $10,250. Of this, 

$10,000 is set aside for nominal compensations of Tribal focus group participants. The following 

text has been added to the TBW, “When appropriate, nominal compensation will be provided to 

Tribal members for their participation in focus groups.” 

The project team will coordinate research with Tribal representatives, councils, and staff. The 

coordination will provide overall project direction and review with minimal workload 

requirements from Tribal representatives, councils, or staff. 

Comment: The deliverables should, but do not identify any products directed at the tribes. 

Response: Discussion of Tribal specific deliverables has been added to the 2015-2017 Triennial 

Work Plan and Budget for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. 

“Reports and presentations specific to the research methods and results of Project 13.2 will be 

provided to individual Tribes as requested.” 
Project 13 Response to Review of Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Triennial Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2015-2017 

Review Prepared by 

David Garrett, Executive Coordinator of Science Advisors, Economics, M3Research 

Lance Gunderson, Adaptive Management & Policy, Emory University 

James Kitchell, Fish Ecology, University of Wisconsin 

John Loomis, Non-Market Economics, Colorado State University 

Peter McIntyre, Riverine Ecology, University of Wisconsin 

Barbara Mills, Anthropology and Archeology, University of Arizona 

Project 13 Response Prepared by 

Lucas Bair, Economist, GCMRC 

Comment: We think the two recreation hypotheses put forward are foundational hypotheses that 

are critical to test. However, we would suggest it might be worth considering an additional 

hypothesis: that the value of angling Glen Canyon and whitewater boating in Grand Canyon NP 

will have increased over time due to changes in “improved” dam operations over the last two 

decades. Of course a one-year survey may have difficulty teasing this out from other events, but 

we think it would be worth at least considering. 

Response: The additional hypotheses have been formally added to the draft text of section ‘C.1 

Scientific Background’, Project 13. 

Comment: The one concern is that the budget for Project Element 13.1, pages 413-414. We do 

not see funds for the actual printing and mailing of the surveys in this budget. Is AFGD or NPS 

picking up this cost? 

Response: The printing and mailing costs of the surveys was included in the carryover socioeconomic funds from 2013-14 ($241K) used to implement the project. Therefore, these costs are 

not included in the Triennial Budget and Workplan – Fiscal Years 2015-2017 (TBW). Text has 

been added to the TBW to clarify this point. 

Comment: What will be important is to differentiate short and long term operation effects on 

socioeconomic factors. 

Response: The research proposed in Project 13.1 will result in information that is useful in 

determining the short and long-term socioeconomic effects of dam operation. Information, such 

as the marginal value of recreational activities, as related to dam operation, can be utilized in 

short and long-term economic analysis to inform management decisions. Text has been added to 

the TBW stating that Project 13.1 ‘information is important when conducting short and longterm impact, and other policy related analysis.’ 

Comment: The SAs strongly agree that a formal program to assist the AMP in development and 

use of decision methods is needed. This has been proposed in several SA reviews and the subject 
of a brief white paper by the SAs on the subject, “Evaluating Decision Support Methods for the 

GCDAMP”. 

Response: The Science Advisor’s December 2010 document, ‘ Prospectus for Evaluating 

Tradeoff and Decision Support Methods for the GCDAMP’ and June 2010 document, 

‘Evaluation of Criteria Guiding Transition of Science Management Actions in Adaptive 

Management Programs’ will be referenced during in the development of Project 13.3. 

Comment: ...Project Element team for 13.3 would benefit from seeing the ongoing work of 

Sandia Labs who are developing a much more general model of the Glen Canyon-Grand Canyon 

hydropower-natural resource system. It is proposed that this effort would benefit from 

discussions with Dr. Tom Lowry, systems analyst with Sandia Labs. 

Response: Dr. Tom Lowry of Sandia National Laboratory was contacted on 7/8/2014. Dr. 

Lowery agreed that continued discussion and collaboration between Sandia National Laboratory 

(SNL) and GCMRC would benefit SNL, Project 13.3 and the GCDAMP. 

Comment: However, how it is accomplished, i.e. a necessity for full engagement of the Tribes 

in all project elements, is most critical. The manner in which the Tribes hold values must be first 

determined through the focus groups proposed. Some resource values expressed by the Tribes 

may be wholly spiritual, making pursuit of economic values incongruent with Tribal desires. We 

suggest GCMRC evaluate the work by Failing and others on First Peoples of Canada for more 

insight into this issue (Failing et. al. 2007). 

Response: As discussed in the TBW, each stage of Project 13.2 will be conducted with the 

cooperation of the Tribes. The project team will 1) cooperate with GCDAMP Tribal 

representatives and Tribal members to review relevant previous studies and tribal programs; 2) 

conduct initial meetings with individual tribes to identify focus group participants and develop 

and pretest focus group survey content to ensure culturally appropriate methodology; and 3) 

conduct focus group meetings with individual Tribal members to explore preferences for and 

values of downstream resources. 

The work of Failing et al. (2007), ‘Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental 

risk management: A decision-focused approach’, along with other relevant literature, will be 

referenced during the development of the Project 13.2 to avoid misrepresentation of noneconomic Tribal cultural values associated with Glen and Grand Canyons when considering 

preferences for and economic values of resource management decisions. 
GCMRC thanks AZG&F for taking the time to review the FY15-17 workplan. We appreciate the feedback, 

comments, and questions and have responded to each below. AZG&F comments are given in italics with 

responses provided below each question in regular text.

Project 5.1. This is a very expense and comprehensive food base project (FY15 = $421,452, FY16 = 

$449,969, FY17 = $517,973) Can GCMRC please provide a prioritized list of the project elements? I 

would like to know what would be lost if each element is not funded. I feel that there are many 

questions surrounding the impact of flows on food base, but not all need to be answered during the work 

plan.

GCMRC response: We agree that this is a comprehensive project, but believe that we have proposed a 

cost-effective group of studies that will enhance our understanding of the aquatic foodbase and provide 

critical information in support of management of the Colorado River ecosystem and the fish that rely on 

the aquatic foodbase. The proposed funding from the GCDAMP for foodbase research and monitoring in 

FY15 is actually slightly less than was received in FY14; FY15 Project 5 + Project Element 7.5 = $664,000 

vs. FY14 Project Elements E.2 + F.7 + H.2 = $672,000. Our initial prioritization, in the form of the FY15 

recommended budget released June 6, 2014, would delay proposed laboratory experiments related to 

insect oviposition until more field data is available to help guide these experiments. 

5.1.1 (Insect emergence in Grand Canyon via citizen science; Recommended for funding $117,920)

Is the data collected via citizen science robust enough to evaluate changes in species diversity and 

density over time? In other words, if there was a core monitoring program for foodbase, would this be 

it? What is lost if we discontinue this work or reduced frequency of collection? 

GCMRC response: This is a very robust data set that provides an unprecedented level of geographic and 

temporal coverage characterizing aquatic insect emergence throughout the Grand Canyon ecosystem. 

This project provides near continuous coverage during the motor season (April – September) and is 

being expanded to involve private river trips in hopes of improving coverage during other times of the 

year. This is an ideal, cost-effective tool to evaluate changes in species diversity and density over time. 

On a per sample basis, this is almost certainly the most cost-effective biology or aquatic ecology project 

conducted by GCMRC or its cooperators. Ending or reducing this work would only return relatively small 

savings to the program at the cost of one of our most informative data streams that is helping inform

scientists and managers on the spatial and temporal dynamics of insect populations in the Colorado 

River ecosystem. Cutting funding to this project would also eliminate a powerful and effective outreach 

tool that currently involves the guiding community and the whitewater rafting public as active 

participants in the overall effort of gathering relevant scientific information in support of the GCDAMP.

5.1.2 (Quantifying the effects of hydropeaking on oviposition and egg mortality; Recommended for 

funding $97,236)

It’s difficult to assess the feasibility of this project element if details are lacking. How is this study going 

to be carried out? Is this river wide? Can funding be reduced if focus is at Lees Ferry where 

hydropeaking will likely have the greatest effect?

GCMRC response: Monitoring sites will be selected based on flow characteristics which will produce the 

greatest contrasts. Sites with wide and narrow varial zones will be selected to allow for comparisons of 

the effects of drying and warming on invertebrate production in areas where minimal proportions of the 

shoreline are exposed due to daily flow changes vs. areas where large proportions of the shoreline are 

exposed daily. Similarly, sites where minimum flows occur during the day will be selected for study and 
compare with areas where minimums occur at night. More details on the proposed methods will be

forthcoming once the study PIs return from conducting field work.

5.1.3 and 5.1.4 (Synthesis projects; Recommended for funding $29,672 and $29,672)

With restricted budgets I am concerned about the extent and cost of this project. I am not convinced 

that conducting a synthesis stressors and controls on EPT distributions and synthesis of foodbase in 

western tail waters takes 3 years and $200,160 to complete. I would suggest reducing costs and time 

frame (ex $75,000-$100,000 for 2-years) and putting this out for competitive bid.

GCMRC response: We believe that any future management actions should be fully informed by the best 

available science. A thorough understanding of species-specific traits and stressors will be essential to 

designing potential mitigation strategies and target species and ensuring that they have the best chance 

for success. Further, we believe that it will be very helpful to our understanding of the current condition 

of the aquatic foodbase in Glen Canyon to compare it with tailwaters elsewhere in the Colorado River 

basin and the western United States. Placing Glen Canyon in the context of other tailwaters may provide 

insight as to how the current invertebrate assemblage became established and suggest approaches for 

management actions to develop a more diverse assemblage in the future. GCMRC will review the 

proposed budgets for FY16 and FY17 and re-evaluate the need to continue these Project elements for all 

three years of the workplan.

5.1.5 (Natural history of oviposition for species present in Grand Canyon; Recommended for funding 

$25,878)

It’s difficult to assess the feasibility of this project element if details are lacking. This project element is 

not clear to me. Please explain what actually will be taking place under this element. 

GCMRC response: Similar to Project element 5.1.3, we believe that understanding the current state of 

the aquatic foodbase in Glen and Grand Canyons should be fully informed by the best available science. 

A thorough understanding of species-specific traits and stressors for species currently inhabiting the 

Colorado River ecosystem will be essential to determine what support, or lack thereof, exists for the five 

hypotheses described for Project 5. GCMRC will review the proposed budgets for FY16 and FY17 and reevaluate the need to continue these Project elements for all three years of the workplan.

5.1.8 (Natural history of oviposition for EPT via studies in the Upper Basin; Submitted for non-AMP 

funding $25,878)

It’s difficult to assess the feasibility of this project element if details are lacking. This project element is 

not clear to me. Please explain what actually will be taking place under this element. If this does not get 

funded will that impact project 5.1.5?

GCMRC response: GCMRC is not requesting GCDAMP funding for this project. We believe, however, that 

it will be very helpful to our understanding of the current condition of the aquatic foodbase in Glen 

Canyon to conduct comparative studies with tailwaters elsewhere in the Colorado River basin. Placing 

Glen Canyon in the context of other tailwaters may provide insight as to how the current invertebrate 

assemblage became established and suggest approaches for management actions to develop a more 

diverse assemblage in the future. If the study isn’t funded, we believe learning will be considerably 

slower as will the development of potential management approaches to improving conditions in Glen 

Canyon.
5.2.2 (Continue Natal Origins drift monitoring in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons; Recommended for 

funding $87,365)

Is the information we gather from this work in terms of changes in species diversity and density over time 

different from that of project 5.1.1 (citizen science)? What is lost if we discontinue this work or reduced 

frequency collection (ex. discontinue January NO trip)?

GCMRC response: Yes, this study is different is several key ways. This effort is focused on sampling 

invertebrates in the drift so provides information on food directly available to fish. It also includes

sampling that occurs concurrently with sampling of fish at specific sites. Paired data will allow linkage of

fish diets with abundance and distribution data collected concurrently with quarterly trout sampling. 

This data will also be used to parameterize rainbow trout bioenergetics models for Glen, Marble, and 

Grand Canyons.

5.2.3 (Link drift at Natal Orgigins project transects to channel bd shear stress; Recommended for 

funding $20,619)

Why is this funding through FY17. The project states that this work can be done over the course of one 

NO trip. 

GCMRC response: Data collection would occur in the first year with analyses and modeling occurring in 

the second and third years. GCMRC will review the proposed budgets for FY16 and FY17 and re-evaluate 

the need to continue these Project elements for all three years of the workplan.

6.2 (Humpback chub aggregation recruitment studies; Recommended for funding; $83,750)

I support this project as determining the natal origins of humpback chub is important in understanding 

the areas we need to focus monitoring and management efforts. A similar project was budgeted for in 

the FY13/14 work plan ($85,000) and as I understand it was not completed due to tribal concerns of the 

taking of life of humpback chub. 

1. If the project proposed in FY13/14 was not completed, what happened to the $85,000 from 

FY13/14 and why is another ~$84k in FY15, ~$54k in FY 16, and ~$50k in FY17 being spent on this

project?

2. This question might be more appropriate for the tribe(s) that were concerned, but will the taking 

of life of the surrogate species be a problem?

GCMRC response: 1. A portion of this funding went to Dr. Karin Limburg, our cooperator at SUNY, to 

purchase equipment and support a graduate student. Unspent funds will be carried forward into FY15. 

The extra funding in FY15-17 is to support GCMRC staff in efforts to sample YOY humpback chub from 

backwaters near aggregations, something that has not been done recently. Part of the sampling 

program will involve tagging YOY and juvenile fish (as small as 80 mm) as well as looking for VIE tags that 

are being applied to YOY humpback chub in the Little Colorado River during July sampling. We hope that 

over time some of these tagged fish will be captured and will help shed light on recruitment at 

downstream aggregations.

2. We can collect surrogate species with NPS samples from Shinumo and Havasu Creeks taken as part of 

trout removal activities that were covered in the NPS fish management plan. Bio/West and NPS have 

agreed to use ethanol to preserve samples (preserves otolith structures unike other preservatives) 
collected as part of their razorback sucker seining surveys (monthly samples through the summer 

downstream of Lava Falls). They can then provide specimens to us for Dr. Limburg to examine. We 

anticipate that they will likely have humpback chub incidental mortalities as a result of their sampling.

6.4 (System Wide Electrofishing; Recommended for funding; $283,722)

I appreciate GCMRC for incorporating the comments we provided on an earlier draft of this project. The 

system wide electrofishing program has been the cornerstone of long term monitoring of native and non 

native fish species in the Colorado River through Marble and Grand Canyons. Species interaction, habitat 

availability, food availability, and water quality dictate the presence and distribution of fish species 

throughout the CRE. The standardized collection of relative fish abundance and distribution collected 

from the long term monitoring is important as it is very difficult to conduct biological experiments in a 

largely uncontrolled environment. While we agree that a reduced effort and duplication of effort is 

warranted we have not been convinced that a focus on abundance measures instead of CPUE is 

warranted nor has it been shown that this is feasible, or an acceptable alternative to the long term 

monitoring currently occurring. While we agree that abundance estimates at certain locations of high 

interest (e.g. at the confluence of Bright Angel Creel and the Little Colorado River) should be pursued the 

standard monitoring program should not be abandoned for short term goals, that may or may not be 

achievable. Changes to this program must be done with caution. 

GCMRC response: GCRMRC is not proposing to reduce the overall effort applied by the SWEF project, 

but have in fact proposed to expand this work by adding a second survey downstream of Diamond 

Creek. For the sake of efficiency, we have proposed coordination between this project and the Natal 

Origins of rainbow trout study (9.2) to avoid duplicate sampling of the same sites in Marble Canyon. We 

have proposed to add experimental mark-recapture efforts at one or more sites to be selected in 

conjunction with cooperating agencies, but not at the expense of maintaining continuity of this 

important long-term monitoring project.

6.5 (Brown trout natal origins through body pigmentation patterns in the Colorado River; Unfunded, 

moderate priority $16,146)

Not sure I would consider this a moderate priority project in the context of other projects that are listed 

as funded. Identifying the source of brown trout and other high risk nonnatives has been identified as an 

information need in the NPS comprehensive fish management plan.

GCMRC response: Dr. Limburg (SUNY) has agreed to examine YOY brown trout and other salmonids 

collected from Bright Angel Creek to determine if there are markers that can be used to identify fish that 

originate in BA Creek. The idea of using pigment patterns to evaluate natal origins of brown trout is 

appealing, but we believe it would be better to wait to determine if the ongoing approach with otoliths 

will be successful before funding a second study on the same topic.

6.6 (Mainstem translocations of humpback chub; Recommended for funding $9,790)

This project might be more appropriate in under project 8. Also is there adequate funding for this project 

(FY15 = $9,790)? This is much less for what appears to be similar work in project 8.2 (FY=15 $88,600) 

GCMRC response: This was included to provide some staff time to examine the feasibility of this project 

and to begin initial NEPA compliance efforts that would be required. The USFWS also indicted this level 

of funding was inadequate so GCMRC will withdraw the request to fund this element.

6.7 (Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey; Recommended for funding $77,024)
This might be more appropriate under project 9.

2009 PEP recommended: 

Monitoring age-0 trout habitat use and movement is not routinely 

needed because the electrofishing survey provides a direct index of 

pre-recruit trout density. Similarly, redd counts are not needed 

because the electrofishing survey provides a direct index of adult 

trout density. This program’s strength is in evaluating the impacts of 

flow manipulations on early life history, and it should be part of the 

evaluation of future flow tests.

The need to conduct annual RTELLS work should be considered when evaluating a standardized 

monitoring program for Lees Ferry as proposed in project 9.1.

GCMRC response: For the current workplan, we decided to include ongoing monitoring of native and 

nonnative fish in the mainstem in a single project. We believe that annual RTELSS surveys are needed 

given that frequent flow manipulations are already being conducted as part of the HFE protocol and 

operations like equalization and other release levels. In addition, it seems likely that Trout Management 

Flows (TMF) will be included the final LTEMP EIS. These RTELLS data will inform those experiments and 

operations and provide more resolution than other studies which would include only fall electrofishing 

surveys of juvenile trout. While fall electrofishing of juvenile trout may provide good information on the 

strength of a cohort, it will not provide information on possible mechanisms that affect cohort strength 

(redd deposition, early juvenile survival, survival through the summer). Understanding these 

mechanisms will be key to understanding the potential for compensation and tailoring the exact design 

of TMFs. Key questions in the design of TMFs include how many cycles, how should they be spread out 

over the summer, and what will each cycle look like. Relying on fall catch alone would likely answer 

these questions eventually; however, the slow rate of learning, possibly on the order of decades, makes 

this approach undesirable.

7.3 (July Little Colorado River juvenile humpback chub marking to estimate production and 

outmigration; Recommended for funding $112,172)

What will be lost if this work is not conducted? I have a concern about costs ($112,000), additional 

helicopter flights, handling of chub in summer for this project. I am not sure if the benefits of this project 

outweigh the costs. There will always be some level of uncertainty around the actual population of HBC. 

I think at some point we just need to accept it and focus more on the population over the long term. Is it 

going up or is it going down. At some point ASMR became unacceptable yet we were able to make 

decisions based on the population estimates that came from that model. This project is planned for an 

additional three years why is that necessary?

GCMRC response: Although the information gathered as part of this study will help generate more 

accurate and less biased estimates of humpback chub population (see Project element 7.10), the main 

objective is to help resolve uncertainties about the drivers of humpback chub population dynamics by 

testing hypotheses. Understanding humpback chub production and outmigration rates are significant for

managers for two key reasons: 1) it’s practically impossible to determine what levels of trout abundance 

and temperatures can be tolerated while meeting humpback chub population and/or recovery goals 

without a better understanding of these rates and 2) understanding how and why the values vary may 

allow managers to improve the timing of certain management actions. For example, managers would 

not want to implement expensive actions like LSSF or trout removal if it was known that a humpback
chub recruitment year like those observed in 2000, 2002, or 2006 was likely (we think these years were 

poor recruitment years based on fall catches of YOY in the Little Colorado River, but it’s possible 

outmigration was unusually high). Others have noted the importance of understanding humpback chub 

production and outmigration in the Little Colorado River. As part of the LTEMP process, modelers

conducted simulations to predict the consequences of alternative management strategies. The order of 

importance of various factors in introducing uncertainty in predictions were: 1) humpback chub

production and outmigration rates, 2) Hydrologic trace, 3) Trout flow-recruitment and outmigration, 4) 

HBC vital rates, and 5) uncertainty in trout-temperature-chub interactions. This study will provide 

information on the degree to which production and outmigration vary inter-annually and will allow us to 

test some of the assumption of the multistate models (e.g., is it true that ~20% of juvenile outmigrants 

end up in the JCM reach or does this rate vary between years). Once we have a reasonable set of 

replicates, potentially by the end of this workplan, we can likely discontinue this research project and 

rely on the Juvenile Chub Monitoring and fall sampling. Another advantage of this project is that we 

hope to leverage the large number of marks being put out prior to dispersal to determine what 

proportion of recruitment at different aggregations is attributable to the Little Colorado River. Since 

directed take of otoliths is not currently allowed, we hope that comparison of recapture rates of marked 

humpback chub at mainstem aggregations from fish marked in the Little Colorado River will allow us to 

make formal inferences.

Concerning the comment about ASMR, this model assumed that all individuals in the population had 

similar growth and survival rates. It’s now clear that this assumption was grossly violated (see Yackulic et 

al., 2014 plus January 2013 and 2014 annual reporting meeting presentations) which could have misled 

informal inferences in the past and thus decisions. In addition, most of the information to inform 

population estimates was from fish caught in the Little Colorado River, but fish are not available in this 

tributary in all years because of skip spawning. This creates heterogeneity in capture probability which 

leads to biased low estimates of adult population size. Finally, ASMR is not a predictive tool so it does 

not help formal decision making. In past instances when predictive information for was needed for 

managament documents like EAs and EISs, modelers would develop simulation models that were

entirely separate from ASMR. As part of the LTEMP EIS for example, Charles Yackulic worked with Lew 

Coggins and Josh Korman to develop such a model which would more closely link estimation and 

predictive tools with the goal that predictions can eventually be updated based on new learning. 

Moreover, review of the published papers on ASMR will make it clear that the developers tried to fit 

models that differentiated the Colorado River and Little Colorado River. They were unsuccessful,

however, because they lacked critical data on young fish now available due to successful 

implementation of projects like Near Shore Ecology, Juvenile Chub Monitoring, and this project. 

7.6 (Potential for gravel substrate limitation for humpback chub reproduction in the LCR; 

Recommended for funding $11,600)

I have a hard time understanding how this will apply to management decisions. With budget restraints I 

do not see this as a high priority project and do not recommend this project element for additional 

funding at this time. I would suggest seeking outside funding or propose this during the next workplan.

GCMRC response: If humpback chub reproduction is limited by gravel substrate, this would allow us to 

predict future years when reproduction would be low and could lead to relatively cheap management 

interventions. Additionally, if this is an important process for humpback chub production and climate 

change predictions are accurate, then this may actually be more important than any other intervention 

for avoiding extirpation. A long-term decline in production in the LCR would be a much more 
detrimental than anything occurring in the mainstem. GCMRC had this project identified as unfunded in 

the May 9 prospectus, but moved this to recommend for funding at the suggestion of the BAHG.

7.7(Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor early life history stages of humpback chub in the LCR; 

Recommended for funding $86,420)

I have a hard time understanding how this will apply to management decisions. This project is expensive 

(FY15 = $86,420, FY16 = $98,210, FY17 $118,272). With budget restraints I do not see this as a high 

priority project and do not recommend funding for this project element. I would suggest seeking outside 

funding or propose this during the next work plan.

GCMRC response: It will be difficult to assess the effects of dam operations (or other management 

actions) on humpback chub without understanding the factors that really limit fish populations within 

the Little Colorado River. Carbon Dioxide has the potential to completely structure fish communities 

within the Little Colorado River and if we are not accurately accounting for CO2 effects, it is likely to 

confound interpretations of any management actions. The laboratory work to evaluate CO2 tolerances 

of Little Colorado River native and nonnative fishes, relative to the published literature, should be 

complete within one year. Field assessments of CO2, however, will need to take place over three years 

(which adds cost) to account for differences in hydrology that will affect the timing and duration of high 

CO2 levels in the Little Colorado River and its effects on early life history stages of fish.

7.9 (Development of a Non-Lethal tool to assess the physiological condition of humpback chub in the 

Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers; Recommended for funding $41,876)

I have a hard time understanding how this will apply to management decisions. This project is expensive 

(FY15 = $41,876, FY16 = $95,526 FY17 $103,808). With budget restraints I do not see this as a high 

priority project and do not recommend this project element for additional funding at this time. I would 

suggest seeking outside funding or propose this during the next work plan.

GCMRC response: The hope is that new technology may provide an alternative to weighing humpback 

chub to calculate condition factor and monitor growth. We have generally discontinued weighing 

humpback chub because of the extra time and stress on the fish, and our inability to find tools to 

provide accurate weights under windy conditions or on a moving boat. Moreover, preliminary data from 

ultrasound work suggests that humpback chub in the field have considerably fewer eggs than humpback 

chub held at the USFWS Southwestern Native Aquatic Resources and Recovery Center in Dexter, NM. If 

this holds, it suggests that humpback chub in Grand Canyon may be chronically in poor condition. This is 

not accurately measured by traditional fish condition indices and warrants further evaluation of the 

proposed approach.

8.1 (Efficacy and Ecological Impact of Brown Trout Removal at Bright Angel Creek; Recommended for 

funding $96,396)

As I understand it, this project was cut in half due to the HFE this past fall. If another HFE is planned in 

the fall can we expect a similar impact? I suggest using funding from project 9.9 (FY15 = $72,616), which 

is designed as contingency during HFE years, to fund this project during non HFE years? In other words in 

HFE years spend money on project 9.9 and in non HFE years spend money on project 8.1 and not try to do 

both at the same time especially if the HFE is going to affect data collection for project 8.1.

GCMRC response: The timing of last year’s HFE did interfere somewhat with planned mainstem trout 

removal near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek and resulted in less effort in the mainstem. GCMRC 

staff instead helped NPS crews conduct removals by backpack electrofishing in Bright Angel Creek itself 
during and immediately following the HFE. Mainstem removals were planned to coincide with the timing 

of brown trout spawning with the goal of removing fish as they staged near the creek mouth to move 

upstream so rescheduling this effort may reduce the effectiveness of this project. We are open to 

discussion about this project, but it should be noted that this project is identified as a conservation 

measure in the USFWS 2011 Biological Opinion and is also part of an overall effort described in the NPS 

Comprehensive Fish Management Plan to control nonnative fish in and near Bright Angel Creek in an 

effort to benefit native fishes. One option could be to utilize the HFE's to target those brown trout that 

move into the creek out of the turbid mainstem (where they can be caught much more effectively) and 

limit electrofishing in the mainstem, but this would need to discussed with NPS to determine if they 

could support this change. Alternating funding between this project and project element 9.9 might be a 

feasible solution if HFEs were infrequent, but note that HFEs have been triggered in two of two years 

since the HFE EA was implemented. This change would also have to be reconciled with the USFWS and 

NPS given the recommendations described in the management documents mentioned above.

8.3 (Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and 

Management Actions Protocol Evaluation Panel; Recommended for funding $0)

I fully support funding a Fish PEP to evaluate the fish program. I would suggest this occurs in FY16 and 

not FY17 so there is time to work PEP recommendations into the FY18-20 work plan. 

GCMRC response: We agree that a PEP will be valuable. There are advantages to conducting the review 

in both the proposed years. Convening a panel in FY16 could bring a relatively quick resolution to 

outstanding issues. On the other hand, it would limit the amount of time available to collect and analyze 

data from some projects as compared to postposing the review until FY17.

Project 9.1 (Rainbow Trout Population Dynamics – ongoing modeling and future monitoring; 

Recommended for funding $37,120)

Maybe I am missing something here, but this is a dramatic shift from the long term monitoring program 

that has been in place since 1991. This long term monitoring project has done a good job of monitoring 

trends and as one of the primary stakeholders for this fishery do not feel like we are missing population 

changes to the fishery. The NPS comprehensive fish management plan outlines stocking triggers based 

on this long term monitoring, which will no longer be valid under the proposed changes. There are 

certainly tradeoffs with doing mark/recapture vs CPUE and those tradeoffs should be evaluated by the 

stakeholders. 

1. Is this replacing the standardized trout monitoring at Lees Ferry? If so I do not agree with this 

project as proposed. Lees Ferry standard monitoring should be funded. Funding for this project 

in FY13/14 was $217,000/yr. 

2. Similar to what is proposed in project 6.4, AZGFD in coordination with GCMRC, would like an 

evaluation of the standardized sampling at Lees Ferry with what is proposed in project 9.1. 

However, before this is done we should not change the standard sampling at Lees Ferry as 

proposed. 

GCMRC response: 1. During the proposed 2-yearr hiatus (2015-2016), the NO sampling will provide data 

that is more robust spatially and temporally, as well as include other additional population metrics 

besides CPUE. These metrics include actual abundance and vital rates like survival, growth and 

movement (which are not currently estimated by the AZG&F long-term monitoring program). Secondly, 

because CPUE data are also measured as part of the NO program, reducing other efforts will not affect 
how managers use CPUE metrics for assessing stocking triggers, however, these other metrics will 

provide the additional information mentioned above. We believe this information is critical to providing 

a full understanding of the effects of past and ongoing dam operations including HFEs, equalization, and 

steady flows on rainbow trout population dynamics and movement in Glen and Marble Canyons. It 

should be noted that our proposal would in fact only be a partial hiatus since we have proposed to 

retain the fall electrofishing survey in 2015 to maintain continuity and provide trigger information 

identified in the NPS Comprehensive Fish Management plan and provide an additional year of overlap of 

different approaches. 2. We agree that an evaluation of sampling approaches would be worthwhile and 

some preliminary analyses have already been conducted. There are multiple years of overlap for the two 

data sets such that comparisons should be relatively straight forward. In addition, this project along with

all other GCDAMP supported fisheries projects will be evaluated in the PEP proposed in Project Element 

8.3.

9.2 (Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the upper Reaches of the Colorado River below Glen 

Canyon Dam/Natal Origins; Recommended for funding $440,512)

1. What information is lost if we eliminate the January NO trip?

2. How much money will be saved if we eliminate the January NO trip?

GCMRC response: 1. The types of data that would be lost include rainbow trout abundance and vital 

rates like survival, growth and movement in Lees Ferry, Marble Canyon, and the Little Colorado River

confluence area during January. Additionally, if trout movement is episodic (e.g., as occurred in the 

winter of 2011-2012) and occurs primarily in winter for age-0 fish, we are likely to miss the event. 

Additionally, we will lose the same information for humpback chub during the winter, which will make 

the humpback chub state model less precise in its estimation of juvenile humpback chub survival in the 

Colorado River mainstem. 2. There would be approximately $50,000 in savings if the January 2015 

NO/JCM trip is cancelled. 

9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 (Multiple projects)

9.3 is recommended for funding, 9.4 is unfunded and 9.5 if partially funded. I have a difficult time seeing 

the ties to management of each of these projects and do not feel that these projects are high priority. 

What information is lost if we do not conduct each of these projects?

GCMRC response: These different studies are attempting to understand the mechanisms that control 

demographic states and rates of rainbow trout. Currently, the GCMRC program has demonstrated that 

there is a negative relationship between rainbow trout abundance and humpback chub survival at the 

Little Colorado River confluence area. Understanding the mechanisms that regulate abundance levels at 

the Little Colorado River has considerable bearing on whether or not the Lees Ferry fishery is actively 

managed, or the Little Colorado River confluence area is actively managed or if trout numbers can be 

controlled by other physical factors such as flow or sediment. Knowing the mechanisms that drive 

rainbow trout populations allows managers to act in a cost effective manner, make informative 

decisions in selecting management actions, and make future predictions regarding resources of concern 

based on monitoring data. 

9.7 (Application of bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river; Recommended funding $33,234, 

Unfunded High Priority $33,234)

Maybe I missed something here, but I do not recall seeing result from FY13/14 work plan. Half of the 

funding for this project is recommended. Can this project be completed if only half funded?
GCMRC response: This project would help us better understand through modeling physical and 

biological factors how certain management actions or environmental conditions outside of our control 

might influence the demographic characteristics of rainbow trout in Marble Canyon. This modeling 

approach allows for us to evaluate the different mechanisms that are potentially regulating population 

parameters for the species of concern. This type of information allows managers to be proactive rather 

than reactive. A preliminary poster for this project was presented at the January 2014 Annual Reporting 

Meeting and a presentation was given in May 2014 at the Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting. If there is 

interest, the May presentation can be presented to the TWG via webinar. A manuscript is currently in 

development with a draft scheduled to be completed later this year. While partial funding is not ideal, 

we believe progress can be made on this project and useful information can be provided at a reduced 

funding level albeit on a longer timeline.

9.9 (Effects of High Experimental Flows on Rainbow Trout Population Dynamics; Recommended for 

funding $72,616)

See comment for project 8.1

GCMRC response: Evaluating the effects of HFEs on rainbow trout was identified as a needed activity in 

the HFE and Nonnative Fish Control EAs. GCRMC needs to be prepared to implement this work in the 

event of HFEs being triggered during the course of the FY15-17 workplan. 

Project 10.

Will this project provide a comprehensive fish habitat assessment? I would like to see system wide 

assessment of physical habitat suitability for fish species of interest in the CRE and not just rainbow 

trout. For example I would like to know where and how many miles of suitable (physical) habitat exist 

for adult Humpback Chub. I like and support the concept of this project and would like to see it fully 

funded.

GCMRC response: No, this study is focused on assisting project 5 researchers in determining what 

effects lower flows like those seen in 2014 might have on key components of the aquatic foodbase by 

disproportionately dewatering shoreline areas that may be critical to these organisms. In addition, we 

are proposing to evaluate the effects of high-flow dam operation on channel-bed sediment conditions in 

Glen, Marble and eastern Grand Canyons that might be contributing to local rainbow trout production 

downstream of Lees Ferry. We believe the habitat assessment proposed by AZG&F would require an 

extensive muti-year effort considerably larger than what is proposed here.

Project 13.1 (Economic Values of Recreational Resources along the Coloraod River-Grand Canyon 

Wiewater Floater and Glen Canyon Angler Values; Recommended for funding $69,801)

We suggest collaborating on the interviews and experimental design to make use of AGFD expertise in 

angler surveys at Lees Ferry. 

GCMRC response: This is a good suggestion and should be evaluated. Initial discussions about 

collaboration with AZG&F have already occurred.