View source for FY18-20 GCMRC Triennial Budget and Workplan


__NOTOC__  __NOEDITSECTION__
<!-- 

------------------------------Banner across top of page------------------------------>
{| style="width:100%; background:#fcfcfc; margin-top:1.2em; border:1px solid #ccc;"
|style="width:25%; color:#000"| <!-- 

-----------'''Welcome to the ENERGY SERVICES GROUP HOME PAGE'''---------->
<table class=MsoTableGrid border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
 style='border-collapse:collapse;mso-yfti-tbllook:480;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes'>
  <td width=40% valign=bottom align=left style='width:2.05in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
  <p class=MsoNormal></p>
  </td>
  </tr>
</table>

[[File:20182020TWP.jpg]]

<!--

------------Portal list on righthand side---------->
|style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"|

== '''GCMRC Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2018-2020''' == 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is a science-based process
for continually improving management practices related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam
(GCD) by emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation, in
fulfillment of the consultation and research commitments of the Grand Canyon Protection Act
(GCPA). The Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Upper Colorado Region is responsible for
administering funds for the GCDAMP and providing those funds for monitoring, research, and
stakeholder involvement. The majority of program funding is derived from hydropower
revenues; however, supplemental funding is provided by various Department of the Interior
(DOI) agencies that receive appropriations. These agencies include Reclamation, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
The budget and work plan for fiscal years (FY) 2018–2020 was largely developed in
consideration of the Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and
Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP EIS) and on the basis of outcomes
from previous work plans. Additional consideration was given to meeting commitments outlined
in: (1) the 2007 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Proposed Adoption of Colorado River
Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and
Lake Mead (2007 Opinion); (2) the 2016 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Long-Term
Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP EIS) (2016
Opinion); and (3) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Draft
2016 Programmatic Agreement.
A consumer price index (CPI) of 1% was assumed for FY 2018, FY 2019, and FY 2020. The
budget and work plan will be updated annually with the actual CPI for the upcoming year. [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-09-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf]

|}<!--

----------Strapline immediately below banner---------->
{| style="width:100%; height:50px" border=1px solid #ccc; background:#cedff2
! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP) Long-term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP)] <br> The LTEMP provides the basis for decisions that identify management actions and experimental options that will provide a framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations over the next 20 years

! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20171006 LTEMP Science Plan] <br> The LTEMP Science Plan describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to DOI, its bureaus, and to the GCDAMP in support of implementation of LTEMP.

! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[Core Monitoring Plan]] <br> The GCMRC Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) describes the consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for example, water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources.

! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[Monitoring and Research Plan]] <br> The GCMRC Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) specifies (1) core monitoring activities, (2) research and development activities, and (3) long-term experimental activities consistent with the strategies and priorities established in this SSP to be conducted over the next 5 years to address some of the strategic science questions associated with AMWG priority questions. 

! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[GCDAMP Budget|Budget and Workplan]] <br> The GCMRC Triennial Work Plan (TWP) identifies the scope, objectives, and budget for monitoring and research activities planned for a 3-year period. When completed, the triennial work plan will be consistent with the MRP. 

|}


{|style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px; background:none;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">

'''FY 2018-2020 Triennial Budget and Work Plan '''

</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

==Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2018–2020 ==
*Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) Costs 
*Technical Work Group (TWG) Costs 
*Program Administration, ESA Compliance, and Management Actions 
*NHPA Compliance and Cultural Resources Program Management 

==Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Triennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2018–2020 ==
*Administrative History and Guidance That Informs This Work Plan 
*2011 Draft General Core Monitoring Plan 
*2012 AMWG Desired Future Conditions 
*2016 LTEMP ROD 
*2017 LTEMP Science Plan 

==Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the Colorado River Ecosystem ==
The primary linkage between Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) operations and the characteristics of the
physical, biological, and cultural resources of the CRe downstream from GCD is through the
stage, discharge, water quality, and sediment transport of the Colorado River. This project makes
and interprets the basic measurements of these parameters at locations throughout the CRe. The
data collected by this project are used to implement the HFE Protocol (i.e., trigger and design
HFE hydrographs), to evaluate the reach-scale sand mass-balance response to the HFE Protocol
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011; Grams and others, 2015), and to evaluate the downstream
effects of releases conducted under the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a, b).
The data collected by this project are also required by the other physical, ecological, and sociocultural
projects funded by the GCDAMP. Most of the project funds support basic data
collection at USGS gaging stations, with only a small amount of project funds supporting
interpretation of basic data. The funds requested under this proposal cover only ~70% of the
costs required to operate and interpret data at the network of USGS gaging stations used by this
project; other funding for this network is provided to the USGS Arizona Water Science Center
from funds appropriated by Congress for the USGS, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (AZDEQ). This project is designed to provide
measurements of stage (i.e., water elevation), discharge (i.e., streamflow), water quality, and
suspended sediment at sufficiently high temporal resolutions (~15-minute) to resolve changes in
these parameters and to allow accurate determination of suspended-sediment loads for use in
sediment budgeting. The proposed monitoring under this project will be very similar to that
conducted over the last 5-10 years.

The 3 elements of this project are as follows: 

*'''Stream gaging:''' This element partially funds the collection, serving, and interpretation of continuous 15-minute measurements of stage and discharge on the main-stem Colorado River at USGS streamflow gaging stations located at river miles (RM) 0, 30, 61, 87, 166, and 225, and at gaging stations on the major tributaries and in a representative subset of the smaller, formerly ungaged tributaries (Water Holes Canyon, Badger Creek, Tanner Wash, House Rock Wash, North Canyon, Shinumo Wash, and Bright Angel Creek).

*'''Water quality:''' This element funds the collection, serving, and interpretation of continuous 15-minute measurements of water temperature, specific conductance (a measure of salinity), turbidity, and dissolved oxygen at the above-mentioned six mainstem Colorado River gaging stations, as well as continuous measurements of water temperature at additional stations on the Colorado River and in the major tributaries. In addition, this element provides a small amount of funding toward the logistics required to collect samples for laboratory water-chemistry analyses (including nutrients) at gaging stations on the Colorado River.

*'''Sediment transport and budgeting:''' This element funds the collection, serving, and interpretation of continuous 15-minute measurements and also episodic measurements of suspended sediment and bed sediment at the above-mentioned gaging stations on the Colorado River and its tributaries. The continuous suspended-sediment measurements at the six mainstem Colorado River gaging stations, and the episodic suspended-sediment measurements in the tributaries are used in the construction of mass-balance sand budgets. These budgets inform scientists and managers on the effects of dam operations on the sand mass balance in the CRe between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead divided into 6 reaches (Figure 1). 

Increases in the sand mass balance in a reach indicate an increase in the amount of sand in that reach and therefore an increase in the amount of sand available for sandbar deposition during HFEs, whereas decreases in the sand mass balance in a reach indicate a net loss of sand from that reach. All measurements made by this project are made using standard USGS and other peer-reviewed techniques. All of these measurements can be plotted and/or downloaded at: https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ or https://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/discharge_qw_sediment/. Plots of continuous parameters can be
made in time-series or duration-curve formats. In addition, the user-interactive mass-balance
sand budgets for the six CRe reaches are available at this website (Sibley and others, 2015). In
addition to the collection and serving of the basic streamflow, water-quality, and sedimenttransport
data, time is spent in this project interpreting the data and reporting on the results and
interpretations in peer-reviewed articles in the areas of hydrology, water quality, and sediment
transport. The interpretive papers published by this project are designed to address key questions
relevant to river management, especially to management in the GCDAMP. To date, this ongoing
project has published over 80 peer-reviewed journal articles, books, proceedings articles, and
USGS reports, a full listing of which are available at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/sbsc/science/fluvial-river-sediment-dynamics?qtscience_center_objects=1- qt-science_center_objects]. This website also provides urls to
download these publications. 

==Project B. Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research ==
The purposes of this project are to a) track the effects of individual HFEs on sandbars, b) monitor
the cumulative effect of successive HFEs and intervening operations on sandbars and sand
conservation, and c) investigate the interactions between dam operations, sand transport, and
eddy sandbar dynamics.

The sand deposits on the bed and banks of the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand
Canyons are directly affected by the operations of GCD. Depending on the relative magnitudes
of dam releases and tributary sediment inputs, sand either accumulates or is eroded from the bed
of the river. When evaluated over long river reaches, sand is evacuated from the river bed during
sustained periods of high dam-releases (Topping and others, 2000; Grams and others, 2015) and
sand accumulates during periods of average dam-releases and substantial tributary sediment
inputs (Grams, 2013; Grams and others, 2013). Sandbars along the river banks above average
base flow (about 8,000 ft3/s) also change in response to dam operations, but in a different pattern,
because they are not always inundated and because they comprise a small fraction of the sand in
the system (Hazel and others, 2006; Grams and others, 2013). These deposits aggrade
significantly during HFEs that exceed powerplant capacity (Schmidt and Grams, 2011) and, to a
lesser extent, during powerplant capacity flows (Hazel and others, 2006). These deposits
typically erode during normal powerplant operations between HFEs (Hazel and others, 2010). 
One of the stated goals in the ROD for the recently completed LTEMP (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 2016) is to "increase and retain fine sediment volume, area, and distribution...for
ecological, cultural, and recreational purposes." Expectations of improved sandbar building and
conservation of sediment were among the criteria used in the selection of the preferred
alternative. One of the central components of the selected alternative is the continued
implementation of HFEs for building sandbars. The LTEMP extends the program initiated with
the Environmental Assessment for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High Flow
Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam (HFE Protocol) which asked the question,
"Can sandbar building during HFEs exceed sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, such
that sandbar size can be increased and maintained over several years?" In other words, does the
volume of sand aggraded into eddies and onto sandbars during controlled floods exceed the
volume eroded from sandbars during intervening dam operations? Additional, condition dependent
experiments are included in the preferred alternative, with objectives related to
sandbar building and sediment conservation. Project B includes elements that are designed to
evaluate whether the sediment-related goals of the LTEMP are met, provide the information that
is needed to proceed with or abort LTEMP experimental activities, and evaluate the effectiveness
of implemented experiments.

Thus, one of the most important objectives of Project B is to monitor the changes in sandbars
over many years, including a period that contains several controlled floods, in order to compile
the information required to answer the fundamental question of the HFE Protocol. The
monitoring program described here continues the program implemented in previous work plans
and is based on annual measurements of sandbars, using conventional topographic surveys
supplemented with daily measurements of sandbar change using ‘remote cameras’ that
autonomously and repeatedly take photographs. These annual measurements and daily
photographs are included in Project Element B.1. This project element also includes work to
more efficiently conduct quantitative analyses of the remote camera images. Because these longterm
monitoring sites represent only a small proportion of the total number of sandbars in Marble
and Grand Canyons, Project Element B.2 includes periodic measurements of nearly all sandbars
within individual 50 to 130 km sediment budget reaches (see Project A for description of
sediment budget reaches).

Another critical piece of information that is needed to evaluate the outcome of the HFE Protocol
and the LTEMP is the change in total sand storage in long river reaches. HFEs build sandbars by
redistributing sand from the low-elevation portion of the channel to sandbars in eddies and on the
banks. The sand available for deposition is the sand that is in storage on the channel bed, which
is the sum of the sand contributed by the most recent tributary inputs, any sand that may have
accumulated since GCD was completed, and any sand that remains from the pre-dam era. The
goal of the HFE protocol is to accomplish sandbar building by mobilizing only the quantity of
sand most recently contributed by the Paria River, thereby preventing depletion of pre-dam era
sand. Some of the sand mobilized by HFEs is deposited in eddies where it builds eddy sandbars. 
Some of the sand is eventually transported downstream to Lake Mead. The most efficient floods
for the purposes of sandbar building are those that maximize sandbar aggradation yet minimize
the amount of sand transported far downstream, thus minimizing losses to sand storage. Dam
operations between HFEs also transport sand downstream, causing decreases in sand storage.
Sediment delivered by the LCR also contributes to sand storage downstream from the LCR
confluence. However, this tributary has contributed only a small fraction of the quantity of sand
delivered by the Paria River (Griffiths and Topping, 2015) and is not included in the HFE
protocol.

Measured trends in sand storage along the channel bed combined with trends in exposed
sandbars will provide the necessary context on which to base future decisions about dam
operations and other potential management options. If sand storage is maintained or increased,
we expect the response to future HFEs to be similar to or better than that observed following
recent HFEs. In contrast, depletions of fine sediment in the active channel are potentially
irreversible if sand supply from tributaries is consistently less than downstream transport. This
situation would threaten the long-term ability to maintain eddy sandbars. These long-term trends
are measured in Project Element B.2, which includes one “channel mapping” campaign to map
changes in sand storage in both lower Marble Canyon (RM 30-61) and eastern Grand Canyon
(RM 61-87) in 2019. Because these sediment-budget reaches have been mapped previously and
because mapping efficiency has increased, we are able to map longer river reaches in a single
river trip than previously. These data will be used to provide long-term (8 to 10 year)
assessments of sandbar and sand storage change for these reaches and a robust evaluation of 7
years of implementation of the HFE Protocol. Project Element B.3 includes work to improve the
control network in support of this and other work plan projects, with focus on the segment
between RM 87 and RM 166, which has never been mapped. The control work is needed to
prepare for mapping this segment in the next (FY2021-23) work plan.

This project also includes one element that provides contingency data collection for HFE
experiments. Project Element B.4 describes studies that will be conducted to monitor and
evaluate the condition-dependent experiments that affect sandbars and sediment resources. This
work plan also includes description of two research components that, because of budget
constraints, were not funded. Project Element B.5 describes a modeling project to produce flow
models that predict the inundation extent and flow velocities for dam operations and HFEs in
Marble Canyon and improve capabilities for predicting sandbar response to dam operations. The
modeling project element also includes description of proposed laboratory experiments to
address the same suite of questions as the condition-dependent experimental HFEs are designed
to test. Project Element B.6 is a research project that proposes to investigate river channel
adjustment and redistribution of reservoir delta sediment on the Colorado River within the CRe
between Diamond Creek and the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park. 

==Project C. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research ==
This project seeks to monitor riparian vegetation response to dam operations in order to
determine if the LTEMP Resource Goals for riparian vegetation are being met (Elements 1 and
2), use the data created by riparian vegetation monitoring in Elements 1 and 2 to address gaps
related to predicting the responses of vegetation to dam operations (Element 3), and support the
implementation of experimental vegetation treatments directed by the LTEMP ROD (Element 4).
Monitoring the state of riparian vegetation along the mainstem is ongoing and critical for
understanding the effects of dam operations on riparian vegetation and associated resources.
Long-term monitoring assesses if riparian vegetation is being maintained “in various stages of
maturity, such that they are diverse, healthy, productive, self-sustaining, and ecologically
appropriate” and assesses if dam operations under the new ROD, daily and experimental flows,
have the expected result of “more native plant community cover, higher native plant diversity, a
higher ratio of native to nonnative plants, less arrowweed, and more wetland,” (VanderKooi and
others, 2017). This project utilizes annual field measurements (Element 1) and digital imagery
(Element 2) for integrated monitoring of changes in vegetation at river segment (for example
Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, etc.) and system-wide scales. Included in monitoring are a 5-year
assessment of vegetation change (Element 1) and an analysis of a new system-wide remote
sensing vegetation classification for, providing an assessment of tamarisk beetle defoliation from
2009-2013 and sand/vegetation turnover dynamism (Element 2). Each of these products provides
an assessment of the status of plant communities identified as being of interest or concern by
stakeholders. Elements 1 and 2 are complementary methods of vegetation monitoring that
determine status and trends at different spatial and temporal scales (Palmquist and others, in
press). These two elements will be integrated through an assessment of relations between fine-scale,
ground-based monitoring with the coarser-scale, spatially continuous remotely-sensed
data. This assessment will allow us to identify the appropriate frequency of the ground-based
monitoring (annual, biennial, or otherwise) and to integrate ecological processes occurring across
different spatial and temporal scales. 

Element 3 proposes to analyze vegetation data from Elements 1 and 2, existing historic
vegetation data, and flow data to examine the influence of dam operations and other
environmental variables on riparian vegetation distribution and address other knowledge gaps
regarding vegetation response. A recent knowledge assessment that was conducted to identify
the current understanding of vegetation response to dam operations elucidated uncertainties
regarding how daily flows and experimental flows impact vegetation complexity, functional
diversity, and species composition. We plan to address some of these uncertainties by creating
predictive models of vegetation responses to LTEMP flow scenarios based on the vegetation
monitoring and remote-sensing products outlined above (and described below). These predicted
outcomes will be generated across multiple spatial scales in order to better understand how
experimental flows are impacting the integrity of riparian vegetation. The results of this work
will help predict vegetation response to dam operations outlined in the LTEMP, help assess if the
LTEMP management goals for vegetation are advancing, and inform the parameters in which
vegetation management will be most successful.

As stated in the LTEMP ROD, NPS and tribal partners will coordinate with GCMRC to conduct
targeted vegetation removal and plantings, including “control of nonnative plant species and
revegetation with native species (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016).” Project element 4 will
help address information needs and management design required for the successful
implementation of this required vegetation management. The NPS, Tribes, and other
stakeholders will also seek to preserve sand resources, camp sites, and archaeological sites
through vegetation removals, restore native riparian plants by planting native species, and control
exotic plants. The long-term success of planting efforts will depend on matching genetically
suitable plant material to specific sites varying in substrate stability and existing vegetation.
Monitoring of post-removal vegetation trajectories could identify how successional processes
interact with dam operations, determine methods for the long-term preservation of these sites,
and prioritize needs for future interventions on a site-by-site basis. These sites will encompass
only a small portion of the riparian corridor and will have different goals and locations from the
monitoring outlined in Elements 1 and 2, so this work cannot replace ongoing monitoring efforts
throughout the CRe. 

==Project D. Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation Management for Archaeological Sites ==
Glen Canyon Dam has reduced downstream sediment supply to the Colorado River by about
95% in the reach upstream of the Little Colorado River confluence and by about 85% below the
confluence (Topping and others, 2000). Operation of the dam for hydropower generation has
additionally altered the flow regime of the river in Grand Canyon, largely eliminating pre-dam
low flows (i.e., below 5,000 ft3/s) that historically exposed large areas of bare sand (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 2016a; Kasprak and others, 2017). At the same time, the combination
of elevated low flows coupled with the elimination of large, regularly-occurring spring floods in
excess of 70,000 ft3/s has led to widespread riparian vegetation encroachment along the river,
further reducing the extent of bare sand (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a, Sankey and
others, 2015).

The changes in the flow regime, the reductions in river sediment supply and bare sand, and the
proliferation of riparian vegetation have affected the condition and physical integrity of
archaeological sites and resulted in erosion of the upland landscape surface by reducing the
transfer (termed “connectivity”) of sediment from the active river channel (e.g., sandbars) to
terraces and other river sediment deposits in the adjoining landscape (U.S. Department of
Interior, 2016a; Draut, 2012; East and others, 2016). Many archaeological sites and other
evidence of past human activity are now subject to accelerated degradation due to reductions in
sediment connectivity under current dam operations and riparian vegetation expansion tied to
regulated flow regimes (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a; East and others, 2016).

The LTEMP EIS predicts that conditions for achieving the goal for cultural resources, termed
“preservation in place”, will be enhanced as a result of implementing the selected alternative.
HFEs are one component of the selected alternative that will be used to resupply sediment to
sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons, which in conjunction with targeted vegetation removal,
is expected to resupply more sediment via wind transport to archaeological sites, depending on
site-specific riparian vegetation and geomorphic conditions (Sankey and others, 2017).
At the same time, HFEs can also directly erode some river sediment deposits containing cultural 
resources, particularly large terraces in the Glen Canyon reach (U.S. Department of Interior,
2016a).

This project quantifies the geomorphic effects of ongoing and experimental dam operations, as
well as the geomorphic effects of riparian vegetation expansion and management, focusing on
effects to the supply of sediment to cultural sites and terraces. The ongoing and experimental
dam operations and vegetation management of interest are those that will be undertaken under
the LTEMP ROD (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) during the next 20 years. The data
and analyses from this project will allow the GCDAMP to objectively evaluate whether and how
these non-flow and flow actions affect cultural resources, vegetation, and sediment dynamics,
and how they ultimately affect the long term preservation of cultural resources and other
culturally-valued and ecologically important landscape elements located within the river corridor
downstream of GCD. 

==Project E. Nutrients and Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding Patterns, Establishing Links and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain Future ==
Ecosystem temperature and nutrient dynamics can influence both species composition and
metabolic rates across many different types of ecosystems (Allen and others, 2005; Brown and
others, 2004; Elser and others, 2003; Elser and others, 1996; Yvon-Durocher and others, 2012).
Given the importance of nutrients and temperature as drivers of the aquatic ecosystem, it is
important to understand their spatio-temporal patterns both because they may be altered by
management actions considered in the LTEMP, and because they may provide essential context
for interpreting responses to flow experiments. Given the potential importance of nutrients and
temperature in driving CRe dynamics, we propose monitoring, research and modeling to: 1)
identify processes that drive spatial and temporal variation in nutrients and temperature within
the CRe, and 2) establish quantitative and mechanistic links among these ecosystem drivers,
primary production, and higher trophic levels. Parallel work in Lake Powell that aims to identify
the controls on nutrient concentrations in the GCD outflow is planned with external funding from
Bureau of Reclamation (see Appendix 1).

Both temperature and nutrients change in response to various processes. A dense network of
stream gaging stations in Grand Canyon provides information on temperature at fine temporal 
resolutions (Project A) and a temperature model exists to predict downriver temperature (Wright
and others, 2008). This model was used to predict responses of downriver native fish populations
and warm water non-native fish species to management alternatives in the LTEMP. Although the
Wright and others (2008) temperature model was a valuable tool for EIS modeling efforts, it has
important limitations. For example, Wright and others (2008) clearly acknowledge that their
model overestimates temperatures in downstream reaches during fall low flow months by as
much as 2 °C, however, this assumption does not appear to have been acknowledged in LTEMP
modeling of downstream temperatures. We are currently modifying Wright’s model and propose
to finish this work in FY2018. These modifications are expected to improve downriver
predictions.

In contrast to our detailed understanding of temperature, we lack even a basic understanding of
gross patterns in nutrient concentrations and their variation over time and along the river. SRP,
the most bioavailable phosphorus, is likely to be especially important given the high N:P in the
CRe, but our understanding of patterns in soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) availability is
especially lacking. While continuous nutrient monitoring at Lees Ferry shows a strong
correspondence between nutrient availability in the reservoir outflow and in the Lees Ferry reach
(Vernieu, 2009), there are very few measurements of nutrients downstream of the Paria River
inflow, with no measurements of SRP routinely made. While the dam releases contribute
substantially more discharge than all tributary inputs combined, tributaries like the Paria River
and LCR are the major sources of sediment and labile organic matter inputs to the Colorado
River and can drive riverine suspended sediment dynamics independent of total river discharge
(Topping and others, 2007; Ulseth, 2012). In the Paria River, total phosphorus concentrations are
1-2 orders of magnitude higher than in the mainstem Colorado (Lawson, 2007; Deemer
unpublished data). While total phosphorus and SRP are both relatively low during baseflow in
the LCR (Deemer, unpublished data; Moody and Muehlbauer, unpublished data), we expect that
storm events may flush significant amounts of P into the Colorado before this P has time to be
sequestered via abiotic reactions (as is highly likely to be occuring during baseflow). More
generally, nutrient loads are likely to vary, at least in part, with suspended sediment loads such
that storms may be important to overall budgets in the Paria River as well.

Indirect evidence suggests that reservoir inputs may dominate nutrient concentrations in the
upper parts of the CRe, but other factors may become more important downriver. For example,
as nutrient concentrations in Lake Powell declined during 2014, Colorado River invertebrate and
fish populations between GCD and Lees Ferry and near the LCR confluence declined
dramatically. However, in more downriver portions of the CRe, the catch of humpback chub,
especially juvenile life stages, was higher in 2014 than in prior years. This suggests either that
nutrient limitation is currently not a controlling factor in the lower half of the CRe (see
hypotheses H5, H6, and H8 in Project G), or that there are unaccounted sources of nutrients in
the lower CRe. These unaccounted sources of nutrients in the lower CRe could consist of
tributary inputs, release of geologically bound P under different environmental conditions, or 
elevated mineralization with higher temperature and/or organic matter inputs (see hypothesis H7
in Project G).

To address these critical management uncertainties, we propose a multi-pronged approach that
aims to better understand processes affecting temperature and nutrient availability in the CRe,
and to further investigate links between these drivers and Colorado River food webs. We have
used the available literature and data to generate a suite of 11 hypotheses which are outlined
below. While there are many other hypotheses one could generate to describe patterns in
nutrients and temperature and their effects on higher trophic levels, we have done our best to
select what we believe are the most probable, management-relevant, and feasible-to-test
hypotheses with the intention that we can build on this information in future work plans. 

==Project F. Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology ==
The primary focus of the food base group over the next three years is continuation of long-term
monitoring that is needed to evaluate progress toward resource goals identified in the LTEMP.
Specifically, we will continue monitoring Colorado River invertebrate drift in Glen and Marble
Canyons, which now represent datasets spanning 10 and 6 years, respectively. We will also
continue the citizen science light trapping of emergent aquatic insects throughout Marble and
Grand Canyons, as well as sticky and light trap monitoring of these insects in Glen Canyon, now
in their 6th and 4th years, respectively. All of these long-term monitoring projects provide
important baseline information that will be used to determine how the aquatic food base responds
to LTEMP flow experiments such as macroinvertebrate production flows. Aquatic insect
emergence is a fundamental natural process in rivers, and thus these monitoring data will directly
inform progress towards the LTEMP goal for Natural Processes. These food base monitoring
data will also provide essential context in support of other LTEMP goals including Humpback
Chub, the Rainbow Trout Fishery, Other Native Fish, Nonnative Invasive Species, and
Recreational Experience.

We will also evaluate ecosystem responses to macroinvertebrate production flows and other
LTEMP flow experiments by initiating drift monitoring at new sites in the Colorado River
throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons during annual food base river trips in the spring
and late summer. Most of these new monitoring sites will be adjacent to tributaries, and at the
peaks and troughs of midge abundance identified in citizen science emergence monitoring data
(e.g., Lees Ferry, Nankoweep, Bright Angel, Tapeats, etc.).

In support of the LTEMP goal for Humpback Chub, we will characterize the quantity of the prey
base in the Colorado River at the LCR confluence and in western Grand Canyon (see Project G). 
Drift and emergence monitoring will be used to determine the quantity of prey available at these
locations. These data on the quantity of prey will be integrated using bioenergetics models,
which explicitly account for the effect that water temperature and food availability have on fish
physiology.

Research into terrestrial-aquatic linkages will be carried out by our group in support of LTEMP
goals for natural processes and tribal resources. The main thrust of this research is a new
collaboration with tribal resource trips to monitor bat and bird activity in the CRe. This effort
will evaluate the extent to which bat and bird abundance is correlated with the 3-fold variation in
midge abundance in Kennedy and others’ Bioscience paper (2016). As part of these terrestrial aquatic
linkage studies, we will also continue to support the PhD research of Arizona State
University graduate student Christina Lupoli that describes the relative importance of aquatic vs.
terrestrial prey to birds, bats, lizards, and rodents (note that ASU covers half of Lupoli’s tuition
and stipend through a fellowship). This research will identify the extent to which aquatic insect
emergence affects the broader CRe, and whether changes in aquatic insect abundance resulting
from macroinvertebrate production flows have ecological effects that propagate out of the
Colorado River itself.

We will also conduct new research into brown trout feeding habits, prey selection, and
bioenergetics in Glen Canyon to determine whether brown trout population increases in this
reach are related to recent deterioration of the prey base. This topic was identified as an
important research need in the 2017 Food Base Knowledge Assessment. 

==Project G. Humpback Chub Population Dynamics throughout the Colorado River Ecosystem ==
Monitoring and research activities associated with humpback chub are mostly mandated by BiOp
associated with the LTEMP EIS, which provides limited flexibility for additional work. Within
these constraints, proposed activities also seek to respond to recommendations made by the
August 2016 Fisheries PEP including: 1) focusing inferences on open models and vital rates
(movement, growth, and survival), rather than solely abundance, 2) improving the efficiency of
humpback chub research, 3) considering additional, hypothesis-driven research into recent
increases in the lower half of the CRe, and 4) critically examining the effectiveness of
translocation programs. Lastly, to the extent possible, analyses and research are responsive to
recent trends and hypothesized drivers.

Since the fall of 2014, adult humpback chub in the Colorado River near the LCR have had
reduced condition factor (the ratio of the observed weight to the predicted weight based on
length), lower spawning rates relative to earlier years, and juvenile chub abundances have
declined precipitously (Yackulic, 2017). While there is good evidence that turbidity,
temperature, and negative interspecific interactions drive vital rates, we hypothesize that these
recent declines may have been driven by a fourth factor – a depressed aquatic food base. This
hypothesis will be one focus of modeling efforts related to humpback chub population dynamics
during FY2018-20. In contrast to the deteriorating conditions near the LCR, there is evidence of
increased catch of multiple size classes of humpback chub in the Colorado River in western
Grand Canyon in recent years. The drivers of these changes are not well understood in part due
to the fact that sampling in western Grand Canyon does not allow for estimation of fish
condition, vital rates, or abundance. 

Humpback chub monitoring and research includes both work within the LCR and in neighboring
reaches of the Colorado River, where densities of humpback chub are greatest, and in less dense
aggregations both upstream and downstream of the LCR confluence. Humpback chub
monitoring near the LCR involves sampling both in the tributary itself and at a site in the
Colorado River downstream from the LCR confluence known as the JCM site. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)-led sampling in the LCR will maintain the same effort (two fall trips
and two spring trips) and will continue to yield abundance estimates from closed models. Effort
associated with the JCM project will be decreased and we will modify our protocol (increasing
the size of the study reach, moving hoopnets more frequently, integrating remote antennas and
focusing sampling during months when capture probability should be highest) with the goal of
maintaining acceptable precision on vital rates and adult humpback abundances that are derived
from open multistate models that integrate data from the LCR and JCM monitoring. We are
testing less expensive technology to track humpback chub movement into the LCR and will
continue to work to integrate these data into population models; however, less staff time will be
available for population modeling in this work plan and goals for progress in population
modeling have been modified accordingly. Aggregation sampling in the Colorado River outside
of the LCR will occur as in the past. To explore the feasibility of hypothesis-driven research
outside of the LCR, we will apply JCM sampling at a site downriver of the LCR to determine
whether JCM sampling can lead to estimates of capture probability, abundance and vital rights
(and ultimately strong inferences on drivers) at sites that likely have lower densities, but higher
capture probabilities. Lastly, translocations about Chute Falls will continue as in the past, and a
feasibility study will be conducted to determine whether translocations into the upper reaches of
Havasu Creek are possible. 

==Project H. Salmonid Research and Monitoring ==
Protection of the endangered humpback chub near the LCR is one of the highest priorities of the
GCDAMP, but a concurrent priority of the GCDAMP is to maintain a high quality rainbow trout
sport fishery upstream of Lees Ferry in Glen Canyon. As such, rainbow trout were an important
component in the development of LTEMP (USDOI, 2016b) on GCD operations, and thus were a
major consideration in the flow decisions in the selected alternative in the ROD (USDOI, 2016c).
Experimental flows proposed in the LTEMP were designed to limit rainbow trout recruitment
and dispersal out of Lees Ferry with a goal of maintaining the balance between the sport fishery
and the humpback chub population downstream. However, ecosystems are dynamic and there
has been a large increase in brown trout recruitment upstream of Lees Ferry over the past few
years (Yard, unpublished data). Given this new development, it is unclear whether the expansion
of brown trout will disrupt the balance between rainbow trout and endangered native fishes
downstream, and further, to what degree flow manipulations can be used to manage both species
concurrently.

A major component of the proposed study elements herein focus on how experimental flows will
influence recruitment, growth, survival, and dispersal of rainbow trout in Glen and Marble
Canyons. However, management of the rainbow trout fishery cannot occur in a vacuum given the
recent increase in brown trout in Glen Canyon. Small numbers of brown trout have been present
in the canyon since the dam was built but have increased following a time period associated with
frequent fall-timed HFEs. It is currently unclear whether this relationship is causal or
coincidental, but research is needed to examine if the proposed flow manipulations help or 
hinder the expansion of brown trout. Brown trout are superior competitors in other tailwater
systems, are typically not stocked past their initial introduction (Dibble, unpublished data), and
are known to be voracious predators of small-bodied native fishes (Yard and others, 2011). It is
therefore prudent and necessary to not only evaluate the effect of experimental flows on rainbow
trout, but also to examine how brown trout populations may respond to such flow manipulations.
This proposal utilizes a combination of field, modeling, and laboratory techniques to evaluate the
response of trout to experimental flows including TMFs, HFEs, equalization flows, and
macroinvertebrate production flows. Project Element H.1 capitalizes on knowledge gained from
the natal origins of rainbow trout (NO) and rainbow trout early life stage studies (RTELSS)
projects funded in GCDAMP’s FY2013-14 and FY2015-17 work plans. This project proposes a
consolidated study design focused on juvenile and adult trout captured during quarterly mark-recapture
trips in combination with pre- and post- flow treatments to evaluate early life-history
responses to TMFs. This project aims to gain a better understanding of the effects of
experimental flows on rainbow trout and brown trout recruitment, growth, survival, dispersal,
and movement from GCD to the LCR confluence. Project Element H.2 develops a rainbow trout
recruitment and outmigration model that predicts the response of rainbow trout to alternative
flows and physical conditions in the CRe. This model can be used to evaluate the ability of
alternative monitoring designs to detect rainbow trout responses to LTEMP flow alternatives.
Project Element H.3 uses information on vital rates contained within young-of-year (YOY)
rainbow trout and brown trout otoliths to improve recruitment models, identify when brown trout
are most vulnerable to flow manipulation, and assess the physiological response of brown trout
to different types, durations, and timing of experimental flows, which is data that can be used to
manage this nonnative species. Finally, Project Element H.4 extends the Arizona Game and Fish
Department (AGFD) long-term monitoring of rainbow trout in Lees Ferry and launches a new
citizen science program to gather data on angler catch quality in combination with ongoing creel
surveys in a cost-effective way. Collectively, these four projects aim to resolve critical
uncertainties about the response of rainbow trout and brown trout to experimental flows
proposed in the LTEMP that are now the basis for its associated ROD (USDOI, 2016c). 

==Project I. Warm-Water Native and Non-Native Fish Research and Monitoring==
Two specific resource goals outlined in the LTEMP EIS and associated BiOp for operation of
GCD are maintenance of self-sustaining native fish populations within the Colorado River and
minimizing the presence and expansion of aquatic invasive species (USDI 2016). Declines in
native fish populations throughout the southwest are commonly linked to adverse interactions
with invasive warm-water fish (Marsh and Pacey, 2005, Clarkson and others 2005). In the
Colorado River, and especially the upper Colorado River, warm-water predatory fish are
implicated in lack of recruitment and population declines in native fish (Martinez and others
2014). For this reason, regulation and control of invasive fish is an important action identified in
all recovery goals for Colorado River endangered fish including humpback chub (USFWS 2002,
under revision). This project aims to provide scientific information that facilitates effective
warm-water fish management in the following ways:

1) By conducting system-wide fish monitoring to track trends in native fish and by
refining existing monitoring efforts and employing new monitoring tools to improve
early detection capability of invasive warm-water fish.

2) By assessing and quantifying the relative risks posed by warm-water nonnative fish to
humpback chub and other native fish utilizing a combination of field and laboratory
research.

Long-term monitoring allows the ability to detect trends and test hypotheses in regard to
temporal variation in fish populations, but its strength also lies in the ability to interpret and
detect unexpected trends or surprises (Lindenmayer and others, 2010, Dodds and others, 2012,
Melis and others, 2015). When designed properly, a long-term monitoring program is a powerful
tool for quantifying the status and trends of key resources, understanding system dynamics in 
response to stressors, and investigating the efficacy of alternative management actions. Without
long-term monitoring, science-based decisions for fisheries management are often not possible
(Walters 2001).

Preventing new invasions is the least expensive and most effective way to control invasive
species when compared to the cost of control projects after invasions occur (Leung and others,
2002). Therefore, we seek to improve detection of potentially problematic warm-water invasive
fish within the CRe in Grand Canyon by continuing existing monitoring efforts and testing new
Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection tools. We propose to continue monitoring efforts at Lees
Ferry by adding an additional night of sampling on both the summer and fall trips to include 12
sites where warm-water species are likely to aggregate and spawn. This will maximize our
ability to detect range expansions of existing warm-water invasive species and those that may
pass through the dam.

Currently, AGFD conducts system-wide fish monitoring using electrofishing, angling and hoop
netting from Lees Ferry (RM 0) to Pearce Ferry (RM 281). Other fish monitoring efforts focus
on humpback chub (project G) and other native fishes small-bodied fish monitoring conducted
by the NPS downstream of Bright Angel Creek, funded by the Bureau of Reclamation. These
projects also provide important detection data related to invasive warm-water fish. As the
elevation of Lake Mead has decreased due to drought, the western segment of the river has
reemerged, creating the need to extend sampling efforts for native fish as well as invasive species
detection for an additional 15 miles to the Lake Mead interface. In this work plan AGFD will
conduct two spring system-wide fish monitoring trips per year and a single fish monitoring trip
per year in the fall to monitor fish populations downstream of Diamond Creek.

New tools such as eDNA will be tested to validate the presence or absence of key invasive
species, determine the spatial extent of invasions within the mainstem Colorado River and
estimate the relative biomass of aquatic invaders. Environmental DNA is DNA that is collected
from the environment in which an organism lives, rather than directly from animals themselves.
In aquatic environments, animals including fish, shed cellular material into the water via
reproduction, saliva, urine, feces, etc. This DNA may persist in the environment for several
weeks, and can be collected in a water sample which can then be analyzed to determine if the
target species of interest are present (Carim and others, 2016).

Ficetola and others (2008) first demonstrated that detection of vertebrates using eDNA in water
samples was possible and interest in using this tool to improve detection sensitivity and cost
efficiency over aquatic field surveys has grown rapidly and been shown to be effective in many
aquatic systems (Goldberg and others 2011). Environmental DNA can have higher sensitivity
and lower cost than traditional sampling methods especially when attempting to detect very rare
organisms. Water samples for eDNA analysis are relatively easy to collect in conjunction with
exiting monitoring trips and data can be paired with standard electrofishing and hoop netting data
to compare the sensitivity of each approach. Investigating the utility of new eDNA detection 
tools is a critical first step in preventing the establishment and spread of warm-water invasive
fish in CRe because it may allow early detection of new invasive species so that management
actions can be targeted to prevent their spread.

Management and removal of invasive aquatic species can be difficult once a species becomes
established because of the large scale of the problem and the few effective tools that are available
(Dawson and Kolar 2013). This creates the need to understand which species pose the greatest
threats. Assessing the risks posed by existing or new warm-water invasive fish provides
managers with the scientific information needed to make decisions about what management
activities are warranted. Hilwig and Andersen (2011), compiled a literature review of the
potential risks posed by individual species, but those risks need to be validated and quantified
based on existing environmental conditions, species abundances, and expected future conditions
in the LCR and CRe. Although extensive research to evaluate rainbow trout and brown trout
predation on juvenile humpback chub under various environmental conditions was conducted in
the previous work plan, other warm water invasive species in the LCR may also be detrimental
to humpback chub and other native fish. To that end, risks posed by other warm-water invasive
fish such as channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and bullhead catfish (Amerius melas) will be
quantified using diet analysis and modeling. Laboratory studies will be conducted to quantify
predation risk from common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and small bodied fish such as fathead
minnow and plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus) (on humpback chub eggs and larvae). These
studies will determine if warm-water invasive fish present more or less of a predation threat to
juvenile chub than predation by trout. This information gives context from which to evaluate
potential management actions such as trout removal and will ensure that any future aquatic
invasive species removal efforts are focused only on those species that pose the highest threat to
humpback chub populations.

In addition to evaluating the risks posed by invasive fish species we will also evaluate the risks
posed by infestation of Asian fish tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) in humpback chub.
Asian fish tapeworm is an invasive species that infests warm-water cyprinid fish. Asian fish
tapeworm monitoring has occurred annually within the LCR and additional monitoring will be
conducted in this work plan on Asian fish tapeworm in humpback chub inhabiting the mainstem
Colorado River as identified in the 2016 BiOp. Asian fish tapeworm has been identified as one
of six potential threats to the continued existence of endangered humpback chub (USFWS 2002).
It is potentially fatal to new host species (Hoffman and Schubert 1984). Asian fish tapeworm was
first documented in the LCR in Grand Canyon in 1990 (Minckley 1996) and was hypothesized to
be a cause of long-term declines in condition of adult humpback chub from the LCR (Meretsky
and others 2000). Monitoring Asian fish tapeworm infestation in humpback chub in the
mainstem Colorado River will provide a baseline context and relative risk assessment with which
to evaluate the potential impacts of this invasive parasite on humpback chub populations. 

==Project J. Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem ==
Project J is designed to identify preferences for, and economic values of, downstream resources
and evaluate how these metrics are influenced by GCD operations, including proposed
experiments in the GCD LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016a). The research will
also integrate economic information from the project with data and predictive models from longterm
and ongoing physical and biological monitoring and research studies led by the GCMRC to
develop integrated assessment models (multidisciplinary models [e.g., biology and hydropower]
that incorporate social and economic considerations), improving the ability of the GCDAMP
resource managers and stakeholders to evaluate and prioritize management actions, monitoring
and research.

This project involves two related socioeconomic research elements. These elements build on
research in the FY2015-17 TWP (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey, 2014) and
include: a) implementation of a tribal member population survey to assess preference for and
value of downstream resources (Element 1); and b) development and integration of decision
support models, using economic metrics, to evaluate and prioritize monitoring of, and research
on, resources downstream of GCD, including the anticipated success (or lack thereof) of
proposed experiments in the LTEMP EIS (Element 2). As detailed in the Proposed Work section
of this project, Element 2 would prioritize modeling of resources with the highest priority for
protection, resource that are impacted by operational decisions at GCD, and resources that have
sufficient predictive modeling frameworks developed to assess future resource states. Priority for
research is based on resources for which protection is required under law (e.g., Endangered
Species Act), exhibit relatively large economic value, and garner a significant portion of the
GCMRC annual budget. 


Element 1:

The proposed quantitative population-level tribal research is designed to provide an efficient and
timely approach to assessing tribal values, perspectives and knowledge of CRe resources. The
tribal member population surveys would apply a set of standard methods extensively used in
resource economics studies for valuing ecosystem services. The research would inform on tribal
perspectives (e.g., perspectives on management actions) and preferences for trade-offs (e.g.,
tradeoffs between energy generation and other downstream resources) related to operation of
GCD. This information is critical when developing quantitative adaptive management models
that assess the most cost-effective management actions and value of reducing scientific
uncertainty (e.g., Element 2). This project element would build on the qualitative research in
Project 13.2 in the FY2015-17 TWP. The qualitative research in FY2017 is being accomplished
through workshops with tribes involved in the GCDAMP, coordinated with recent work,
including a NPS nonuse survey focused on national and regional populations (Duffield and
others, 2016), as well as direct use recreation studies (Bair and others, 2016; Neher and others,
revise and resubmit; Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). This work is
scheduled to be completed prior to implementation of Element 1.

Element 2:

This project element will build on the framework of a bioeconomic model developed to integrate
rainbow trout and humpback chub population models and cost-effectiveness analysis, used to
identify efficient management actions to meet adult humpback chub abundance goals (Bureau of
Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). Current research includes the exploration of
which uncertainties in humpback chub population parameters have the greatest implications for
management decisions (i.e., quantitative adaptive management model) and the explicit trade-offs
(efficacy and cost) between TMFs and rainbow trout removals at the LCR. Element 2 will
explore which drivers, linkages and uncertainties in experimental flows (e.g., TMFs) have the
greatest implications for rainbow trout management decisions, and address the impacts of longterm
trends in recruitment of rainbow trout and humpback chub of rainbow trout and humpback
chub on monitoring and research priorities. Integrating hydropower analysis into the modeling of
TMFs will be a primary focus of Element 2. Hydropower analysis is an incremental step in the
development of applied decision and scenario analysis research at GCMRC. Adding hydropower
analysis into the applied decision and scenario analysis research is timely provided the proposed
LTEMP EIS experiments, including TMFs.

Element 1 addresses the LTEMP ROD objective to respect the “interests and perspectives of
American Indian Tribes” and Element 2 addresses the LTEMP ROD objective to “determine the
appropriate experimental framework that allows for a range of programs and actions, including
ongoing and necessary research, monitoring, studies, and management actions in keeping with
the adaptive management process” (U.S Department of Interior, 2016b). Element 2 also 
considers hydropower and attempts to “maintain or increase Glen Canyon Dam electric energy
generation, load following capability, and ramp rate capability, and minimize emissions and
costs to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with improvement and long-term stability of
downstream resources” (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b). Element 2’s focus on adaptive
management modeling is consistent with the GCDAMP fisheries review panel’s
recommendation that the program, “adopt [a] decision theoretic approach to adaptively manage
the rainbow trout fishery and humpback chub population” (Casper and others, 2016). A decision theoretic
approach to adaptive management is when a, “predictive model or set of models are
created that represent alternative ideas of how the system works” and those priors are evaluated
through predicted or actual future resource states (Casper and others, 2016). This approach,
would allow the GCDAMP to “optimize” monitoring and research by identifying the relative
efficiency of learning opportunities. The proposed project elements therefore address the
LTEMP EIS resource goals related to humpback chub, tribal concerns, hydropower, and rainbow
trout. 

==Project K. Geospatial Science and Technology ==
The geospatial and information technology industries continue to change and expand at a rapid
pace. Much of this growth is driven by advances in technology—from improved sensors for
monitoring the Earth to increased digital data storage capacity to newer computer systems
designed for processing large data sets more efficiently to the greater emphasis of the “Internet
of Things” where the reliance of web-based technologies have revolutionized our world. The
purpose of this project is to continue to advance GCMRC’s ability to leverage many of these new
technologies for the benefit of the Center, the science projects described within this work plan,
and the larger GCDAMP that they serve. Work performed within this project makes it possible to
share important information about trends in resources of the CRe to the GCDAMP through web based,
interactive tools and mapping products, allowing the GCDAMP to make informed, time sensitive
decisions on experimental and management actions under the 2016 LTEMP and the
associated ROD (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016).

GCMRC continues to collect, store, process, analyze, and serve an ever-growing amount of
digital data. Much of the data that now exists in the Center has a geospatial component to it.
The importance of being able to effectively manage these data has never been greater as
technological advances have increased both the demand and the expectancy of more open data
availability. This project will continue to build and maintain systems that will handle these data
needs, as well as provide high-level support to other science projects in the form of data
processing, data management and documentation, geospatial analysis, and access to the Center’s
data holdings. Maintaining and improving upon GCMRC’s capacity for providing this level of
access will be crucial to effective decision-making during the implementation of the LTEMP. 

==Project L. Remote Sensing Overflight in Support of Long-term Monitoring and LTEMP ==
This project seeks to collect system-wide, high-resolution multispectral imagery and a Digital
Surface Model (DSM) of the Colorado River corridor from the forebay of GCD downstream to
Lake Mead, and along the major tributaries to the Colorado River. The proposed schedule for
this data collection mission would be in May of 2021, during the first year of the FY2021-23
TWP. The data sets derived from previous remote sensing overflights have proven to be
extremely valuable to many of the research projects conducted by GCMRC over the past two
decades (Draut and Rubin, 2008; Grams and others, 2010; Ralston and others, 2008; Sankey and
others, 2015a; Sankey and others, 2015b). More importantly, scientific research which relied
heavily on these data were the basis for the 2016 LTEMP planning and will be used in the ROD
implementation process (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016).

The LTEMP states sediment as a resource of key interest and a primary driver for many of the
proposed flows defined in the LTEMP ROD. Specifically, the document describes the long-term 
effects of HFEs and other dam operations on sandbar deposition and rehabilitation, and
strategically collected aerial photography and photogrammetrically-derived DSMs provide
greater context and understanding of trends otherwise measured through the Sandbar and
Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research project (Project B) with remote camera photographs,
topographic surveys conducted at the long-term monitoring sandbar sites, and extended, reach based
channel mapping surveys. Derived overflight image-based data sets that classify system wide
areas of exposed sand will assist these field-based methods in quantifying sediment storage
throughout the CRe on a decadal time scale. Additionally, adjusted elevation data from the DSM
surface will be merged with the topographic and bathymetric data collected during channel
mapping surveys (Project B.2) to develop full channel geometry maps for specific segments of
the river, allowing for more complete volumetric calculations and improved hydrologic flow
modeling of the system over time.

The importance of cultural resources is described in the LTEMP objective and resources. Similar
to the sediment storage project, the overflight imagery and derived data sets will play an
important role in measuring and tracking changes in sediment and vegetation at cultural resource
sites as defined in LTEMP (East and others, 2016). An imagery data set collected during this
TWP would provide the next necessary time interval for future inventory and monitoring of these
sites.

Riparian vegetation has also been identified as a key resource in the LTEMP. The ability for
researchers (Riparian Vegetation Monitoring, Project C) to monitor changes in woody riparian
vegetation in response to dam operations is dependent upon the acquisition of new imagery data
sets that are consistent with those previously collected (Sankey and others, 2015a,b). Data
collection needs to conducted at a time interval that allows researchers to track key vegetation
changes such as encroachment onto sandbars, a process known to cause channel narrowing
(Dean and Schmidt, 2011) and quantify the reduction in exposed sand area (Sankey and others,
2015a). Lastly, classifications derived from the imagery data will be used to detect vegetation
succession at the landscape-scale for woody species and some obligate herbaceous riparian
species (Ralston and others, 2008). Strategically planning the appropriate time interval for future
missions provides optimization of measurements on the long-term response of riparian
vegetation to dam operations under the new LTEMP and the preferred alternative.
Fish monitoring efforts occurring in the Colorado River downstream of GCD, in the LCR
downstream of Blue Springs, and in other Colorado River tributaries in Grand Canyon now use
the current overflight data (Durning and others, 2016) for spatial positioning of sampling data,
navigating waterways and side canyons, and recording contextual site information. Colorado
River fish sampling since 2012 has been based on a GIS reference system derived from the two
most recent remote sensing imagery data sets (Yard and others, 2016). While a new imagery data
set collected in 2021 may not warrant updating the existing mainstem fish sampling system, the 
new imagery will certainly be used as a critical data reference for the next five to seven years of
fish monitoring.

Use of the proposed May 2021 imagery data set is a distinct and important tool that assists many
of the proposed projects in this TWP. The overflight is a resource that has both an immediate and
a longer-term (e.g., decadal) payoff. For these reasons, this project is mission critical to
successfully inform the GCDAMP on performance of the LTEMP ROD. 

==Project M. Administration ==
The Administration budget covers salaries for the administrative assistant, librarian, budget
analyst, the three members of the logistics support staff, as well as leadership and management
personnel for GCMRC. Leadership and management personnel salaries include those for the
GCMRC Chief and Deputy Chief as well as half the salary for one program manager. Travel and
training includes most of the travel and training costs for administrative personnel and the cost of
GCMRC staff to travel to AMWG and TWG meetings. Operating expenses includes 1) GSA
vehicle costs including monthly lease fees, mileage costs, and any costs for accidents and
damage; 2) DOI vehicle costs including gas, maintenance, and replacements costs; 3) GCMRC’s
Information Technology equipment costs; and 4) a $20,000 annual contribution to the equipment
and vehicles working capital fund. Cooperator funding is for support of the Partners in Science
Program with Grand Canyon Youth. 

==Project N. Hydropower Monitoring and Research ==
The LTEMP ROD (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a) states that the objective of the
hydropower and energy resource goal is to, “maintain or increase Glen Canyon Dam electric
energy generation, load following capability, and ramp rate capability, and minimize emissions
and costs to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with improvement and long-term
sustainability of downstream resources.” Project N will identify, coordinate, and collaborate with
external partners on monitoring and research opportunities associated with operational
experiments at GCD designed to meet hydropower and energy resource objectives, as stated in
the LTEMP ROD (U.S. Department of the interior, 2016a).

Operational experiments include proposed experiments in the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of
Interior, 2016b), and other identified operational scenarios at GCD to improve hydropower and
energy resources, while consistent with improvement and long-term sustainability of other
downstream resources. Project N will prioritize monitoring and research of proposed
experiments in the LTEMP EIS and consider impacts of other proposed experiments on
hydropower and energy as part of the experimental design. Project N will also utilize metrics in
the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b) and research by Jenkins-Smith and others
(2016) to inform opportunities to incorporate the total economic value of hydropower into the
assessment of operational changes at GCD. Coordinated project implementation and
development will occur between Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA),
and other collaborators to utilize and build on existing hydropower and energy models and data,
specifically from Appendix K in the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b). 

==Appendices==
*Appendix 1. Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring 
*Appendix 2a. Potential Budget Allocation Summary by Project and Year 
*Appendix 2b. Potential Budget Allocation – FY2018
*Appendix 2c. Potential Budget Allocation – FY2019 
*Appendix 2d. Potential Budget Allocation – FY2020 
*Appendix 2e. Potential Budget Allocation Experimental Projects 

|}

<!--

--------------------------------ADDITIONAL------------------------------->
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Links </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*[[GCDAMP Planning]]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_Budget GCDAMP Budget and Workplan Page]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_BAHG_Page Budget AdHoc Group Page]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Documents and Direction </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*[[Media:GCMRC FY20 ANNUAL REPORT-Final 12.18.2020.pdf | GCMRC FY20 Annual Project Report]]
*[[Media:FY2019 GCMRC Annual Report-12-19-2019-FINAL.pdf | GCMRC FY19 Annual Project Report]]
*[[Media:FY2018 GCMRC Annual Report-FINAL 12-13-2018.pdf | GCMRC FY18 Annual Project Report]]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-09-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Budget and Work Plan— Fiscal Years 2018–2020, Final AMWG Draft: September 11, 2017 ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2016-10-18-twg-meeting/Attach_09b.pdf GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process (Updated October 19, 2016)]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_04b.pdf Conservation Measures Extracted from the Nov. 28, 2016 USFWS LTEMP Biological Opinion]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf Appendix D Draft Final Proposed Action Triggers for the Management of Humpback Chub, Colorado River, Grand Canyon]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_06a.pdf PEP: Final Report for the Fisheries Program Review]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> ADHOC Group Information Needs </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*CRAHG
*[[Media:SEAHG Priorities 17mar17.docx| SEAHG Monitoring and Research High Priorities for FY18-20.]]
*[http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/2/2d/Final_TAHG_Report_to_TWG.pdf TAHG Information Needs]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Papers and Presentations</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

'''2020'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2020-08-20-amwg-meeting/20200820-COVID-19ImpactsFY20Workplan-508-UCRO.pdf COVID-19 Impacts to FY20 Workplan ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2020-01-13-twg-meeting/20200113-GCMRCFY2019AnnualReport-508-UCRO.pdf U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center – Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Project Report ]

'''2019'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2019-06-11-twg-meeting/20190611-FY2020ProposedBudget-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget Presentation ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2019-05-01-twg-meeting/20190501-EndFiscalYear2018Reporting-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf End of Fiscal Year 2018 Reporting Presentation ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2019-03-06-amwg-meeting/20190306-TWGChairReportTriennialBudgetWorkPlanProcess-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Technical Work Group Chair Report and Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process Presentation]

'''2018'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-06-25-twg-meeting/Attach_02a.pdf Possible Experimental Actions to be Implemented in CY 2019]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-06-25-twg-meeting/Attach_02b.pdf Discussion of Experimental Actions to be Considered in CY19 and Beyond ]
*[https ://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2018-08-22-amwg-meeting/Attach_06.pdf Development of a Budget Recommendation from the TWG to the AMWG]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-06-25-twg-meeting/Attach_08r.pdf Development of a Budget Recommendation to the Adaptive Management Group PPT]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-06-25-twg-meeting/Attach_16.pdf Discussion of Experimental Actions to be Considered in CY19 and Beyond II]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2018-05-22-amwg-meeting/Attach_03.pdf FY 2019 Proposed Budget PPT]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-04-23-twg-meeting/Attach_11c.pdf GCMRC Budget and Work Plan Update PPT]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-04-23-twg-meeting/Attach_11b.pdf FY 18-20 Budget Update PPT]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-04-23-twg-meeting/Attach_11a.pdf State of the Budget and Work Plan and Consideration of Potential Changes to the Fiscal Year 2 Triennial Work Plan PPT]

'''2017'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_12b.pdf EM Dated May 9, 2017, Subject: Suspension of FACA Meetings & Activities]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_12c.pdf Overarching Comments from Budget Discussion]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_12a.pdf Combined Budget Ad Hoc Group Notes]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_10c.pdf Science Advisor Comments on Draft GCMRC TWP and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_10b.pdf Science Advisor Comments on Draft USBR TWP and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_10a.pdf Preliminary Comments on Draft TWP and Work Plan PPT]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_09a.pdf Preliminary Draft of GCMRC's TWP and Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-2020]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_08b.pdf Preliminary Reclamation FY18-20 TWP and Budget PPT]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_08a.pdf Draft - Bureau of Reclamation TWP and Work Plan Fiscal Years 2018-2020]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_07.pdf Status of Developing Triennial Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-02-15-amwg-meeting/Attach_13.pdf FY2018-20 Triennial Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-01-26-twg-meeting/A9_Shanahan.pdf Upcoming Budget and Group Exercise]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-01-26-twg-meeting/A8_Smith.pdfAdaptive Management Program Funding Considerations ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-01-26-twg-meeting/A7_Shanahan.pdf As Requested by the AMWG, Review the FY17 Budget]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-01-26-twg-meeting/A5_Shanahan.pdf AMWG Request to Review Potential Budget Changes]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> FY 2018-2020 Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

== '''Draft Program Areas for 2018-20 TWP''' ==
[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP) Based on ROD Resource Categories] (see page 6 of the [http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/LTEMP_ROD.pdf ROD])
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=CULTURAL Archaeological and Cultural Resources]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Humpback_Chub_Page Humpback Chub]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=HYDROPOWER Hydropower and Energy]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FISH Other Native Fish Species]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=RECREATION Recreational Experience]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_Sediment Sediment]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Tribal_Resources Tribal Resources]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FISHERY Rainbow Trout Fishery]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Riparian_Vegetation Riparian Vegetation]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=WATER_QUALITY Water Quality] and [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FOOD_BASE Food Base] (added, part of KA)
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Nonnative_Invasive_Aquatic_Species Invasive Fish Species] (added, part of KA)

*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=ECOSYSTEM Natural Processes]: Not used (is an evaluation of above resources as related to “natural” benchmarks)


|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> LTEMP BiOp Conservation Measures [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP)] (2016) </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

== [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Humpback_Chub_Page Humpback Chub] ==

Ongoing actions:

*Translocations of humpback chub into tributaries of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons
*Spring and fall humpback chub population estimate
*Control or removal of nonnative fish in tributaries prior to chub translocations 
*Humpback chub refuge population at a federal hatchery 
*Ensure that a stable or upward trend of humpback chub mainstem aggregations can be achieved by:
#Annual monitoring of the Little Colorado River humpback chub aggregation (e.g., juvenile chub monitoring parameters). 
#Annual monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River to determine status and trends of humpback chub.
#Periodic surveys to identify additional aggregations and individual humpback chub.
#Evaluate existing aggregations and determining drivers of these aggregations.
#Explore means of expanding humpback chub populations outside of the Little Colorado River Inflow aggregation. 
*Disease and parasite monitoring

New actions:

*Feasibility study for translocation of humpback chub into Upper Havasu Creek (above Beaver Falls). 
*Evaluate other tributaries for potential translocations.

== [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_RAZU_Fish Razorback Sucker] ==

Ongoing actions:

*Larval and small-bodied fish monitoring.

== Actions to benefit all [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FISH native aquatic species]  ==

Ongoing actions:

*Investigate the possibility of renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide.
*Remove [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Brown_Trout brown trout] (and other [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Nonnative_Invasive_Aquatic_Species nonnative species]) from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded spawning populations develop.

New actions:

*Explore the efficacy of a [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=TEMPERATURE temperature control device] at the dam to respond to potential extremes in hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that could result in [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Nonnative_Invasive_Aquatic_Species nonnative fish] establishment. 
*Preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam.
*Fund the NPS and GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to alter the [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Green_Sunfish_Page backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12].
*Develop a plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species.
*Experimental use of [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Trout_Management_Flows TMFs] to inhibit [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Brown_Trout brown trout] spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon

== Southwestern willow flycatcher and Yuma Ridgway’s rail ==

*Conduct Yuma Ridgway’s rail surveys
*Conduct southwestern willow flycatcher surveys

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> LTEMP Experimental and Management Actions [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP)]  </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=The_HFE_Page Spring HFEs ≤  45,000 cfs in March or April]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=The_HFE_Page Proactive Spring HFEs ≤ 45,000 cfs in April, May, or June]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=The_HFE_Page Fall HFEs ≤ 45,000 cfs in October or November]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=The_HFE_Page Fall HFEs > 96‐hr duration in October or November]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Trout_Management_Flows Trout management flows from May to August]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=The_Bugflow_Experiment Macroinvertebrate production flows from May to August]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Humpback_Chub_Page Humpback chub translocations (mainstem and tributaries)]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Humpback_Chub_Page Larval humpback chub head‐start program]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Nonnative_Invasive_Aquatic_Species Mechanical removal of rainbow trout from LCR reach]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Nonnative_Invasive_Aquatic_Species Mechanical removal of invasive fish species]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Riparian_Vegetation Riparian vegetation restoration]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> TWG Budget Preliminary List Exercise </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

The Technical Work Group (TWG) at its January 27, 2017 meeting identified a preliminary list of budget items that it wanted to be considered in the FY 18-20 TWP. <br> 
*[[Media:Budget Guidance Exercise Results Part 1.pdf| GCDAMP TWG budget guidance tables (Part 1)]]
*[[Media:Budget Guidance Exercise Results Part 2.pdf| GCDAMP TWG budget guidance tables (Part 2)]]

'''Hot Topics:'''
*Humpback chub in Western Grand Canyon
*Invasive species surveillance and response (brown trout and green sunfish in Glen Canyon)
*Foodbase Augmentation
*Nutrients
*Synthesis of TEK and indigenous knowledge systems and integrate into AMP
*Hualapai Archive Project
*Arch site and terrace monitoring in Glen Canyon Reach
*Integration of tribal value and knowledge into treatment of archaeological sites
*Cool water TCD and generation on the bypass tubes
*Experiments that could increase hydropower value
*Impacts of TMFs
*HFE monitoring
*Study how lower down ramping rates of HFEs relates to slower eroding beaches via building lower sloping beaches
*Re-evaluate triggers for spring HFEs to include biological considerations as well as sediment
*TWP Chapter 2 to represent the Strategic Science Plan

The following are a photo record of the TWG Budget Preliminary List Exercise. You can click on the following images 1x and 2x to get to a larger view.

== Overall ==
[[File:20170126 overall.jpg|100px|Overall]] 

== Multiple Topics ==
[[File:20170126 multiple.jpg|100px]] [[File:20170126 multiple2.jpg|100px]] [[File:20170126 multiple3.jpg|100px]] 

== Sediment ==
[[File:20170126 sediment.jpg|100px]] 

== Archaeological and Cultural Resources ==
[[File:20170126 Archaeology.jpg|100px]] 

== Aquatic Foodbase ==
[[File:20170126 Foodbase.jpg|100px]] 

== Humpback chub ==
[[File:20170126 chub1.jpg|100px]] [[File:20170126 chub2.jpg|100px]] [[File:20170126 chub4.jpg|100px]] [[File:20170126 chub3.jpg|100px]]

== Trout ==
[[File:20170126 trout.jpg|100px]] [[File:20170126 TMFs.jpg|100px]] 

== Invasive Fish Species ==
[[File:20170126 InvasiveFish.jpg|100px]] 

== Hydropower and Energy ==
[[File:20170126 Hydropower.jpg|100px]] 

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> 2017 BAHG meeting notes </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

'''First Draft'''
*[[Media:FY18-20 TWP BAHG Table 20170313.xlsx| BAHG table for the FY18-20 TWP (20170313)]]
BAHG meeting #1
*[[Media:2017-03-07 BAHG 1 notes DRAFT for BAHG review.docx| BAHG meeting #1 2017-03-07 (draft)]]
*[[Media:20170307 BAHG 1 notes final.docx| BAHG meeting #1 2017-03-07 (final)]]
BAHG meeting #2
*[[Media:2017-03-10 BAHG 2 notes DRAFT for BAHG review.docx| BAHG meeting #2 2017-03-10 (draft)]]
*[[Media:20170310 BAHG 2 notes final.docx| BAHG meeting #2 2017-03-10 (final)]]
BAHG meeting #3: Other Native Fish Species (other than HBC), Rainbow Trout Fishery, Nonnative Invasive Species, and Riparian Vegetation
*[[Media:20170316 BAHG 3 notes DRAFT for BAHG review.docx| BAHG meeting #3 2017-03-17 (draft)]]
*[[Media:20170316 BAHG 3 notes FINAL RL.docx| BAHG meeting #3 2017-03-17 (final RL)]]
*[[Media:20170316 BAHG 3 notes FINAL.docx| BAHG meeting #3 2017-03-17 (final)]]
BAHG meeting #4: Nutrients, Humpback Chub, Foodbase
*[[Media:20170320 BAHG 4 notes draft.docx| BAHG meeting #4 2017-03-20 (draft)]]
*[[Media:20170320 BAHG 4 notes final.docx| BAHG meeting #4 2017-03-20 (final)]]
BAHG meeting #5: Sediment, Socioeconomics, Cultural Resources
*[[Media:20170323 BAHG 5 final.docx| BAHG meeting #5 2017-03-23 (final)]]

Science Advisors Review
*[[Media:GCDAMP SAP Review of GCMRC FY18-20 Triennial Plan Draft of May 2017 (2017-06-09).pdf| GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Review of Reclamation FY18-20 Triennial Plan First Draft of May, 2017]]
*[[Media:GCDAMP SAP-In-Document Annotation Review of GCMRC FY18-20 Triennial Plan Draft of May 2017 (2017-06-06).docx| GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator In-Document Annotation of Reclamation FY18-20 Triennial Plan First Draft of May, 2017]]

'''Second Draft'''
*[[Media:Budget AdHoc Group Call notes 7-6-17.docx| BAHG meeting notes (7-6-2017): Reclamation Budget]]
*[[Media:Budget AdHoc Group Call notes 7 13 2017.docx| BAHG meeting notes (7-13-2017): Reclamation Budget, GCMRC Projects A, B, and J]]

Science Advisors Review
*[[Media:GCDAMP SAP Review (2017-07-24) of Reclamation FY18-20 Triennial Plan Draft of June 30 2017.pdf| GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Review of Reclamation FY18-20 Triennial Plan Second Draft of June 30, 2017]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> 2017 Budget Process Timeline (subject to change)
</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*March 16: BAHG meeting to discuss Other Native Fish Species (other than HBC), Rainbow Trout Fishery, Nonnative Invasive Species, and Riparian Vegetation
*March 20: BAHG meeting to discuss Nutrients, Humpback Chub, Foodbase
*March 23: BAHG meeting to discuss Sediment, Socioeconomics, Cultural Resources
*April 10: annotated abstracts to TWG (First Draft)
*April 20-21: TWG meeting with feedback
*April 26: TWG member written comments back to GCMRC / Reclamation
*April 28 (9-11 MDT): BAHG meeting (conference call) to discuss TWG comments
*May 9: Suspension of FACA meetings
*July 1: Draft full workplan (Second Draft) to Sound Science and BAHG / TWG, DOI, Tribes
*July 6: Review process, general overview, BOR work plan and budget
*July 13: Science Advisers comments on GCMRC work plan (and BOR if available), GCMRC review Projects A (Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport), B (Sandbar and Sediment Storage), and J (Socioeconomic)  
*July 20: GCMRC review Projects Projects E (Nutrients and Temperature), F (Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology), and G (Humpback Chub)
*July 27: GCMRC review Projects Projects H (Trout), I (Non-natives), K (Geospatial Science), and L (Overflight)
*August 3: GCMRC review Projects Projects C (Riparian Vegetation), D (Vegetation Management for Dunefields, Terraces, and Archaeological Sites), and M (Administration)
*August 3 (1230-130 MDT): BAHG call to discuss Second Draft
*August 4: BAHG written comments due to GCMRC / Reclamation
*August ??: BAHG and Sound Science meeting (conference call) to review Science Advisers comments
*August 18: Draft (Third / Final Draft) to TWG 
*August 24??: BAHG call to discuss Third Draft??
*August ??: GCMRC and Reclamation provide a final draft TWP to the AMWG for their review. 
*August 30-31: TWG meeting at GCMRC (Flagstaff) to discuss and approve budget
*September 20-21: AMWG meets (Phoenix/Tempe TBD) to provide input on the GCMRC and Reclamation draft TWP and provide a recommendation to the SOI. 
*October 1: Fiscal Year 1 begins under the TWP guidance. 
*November 1: Consumer Price Index becomes available. 
*Late November: Science and management meeting with DOI and cooperators. 
*December: Budget is finalized. USGS produces GCMRC annual project reports document for prior year work. 


|}