View source for FY 15-17 GCMRC Triennial Budget and Work Plan


__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:FY15 17TWP.jpg|center|600px]]

<!--

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

== '''GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2015-2017''' == 

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 (BOR) Upper Colorado Region (BRUC) is responsible for administering
funds for the GCDAMP and providing those funds for monitoring, research, and stakeholder
involvement. The majority of program funding is derived from hydropower revenues; however,
supplemental funding is provided by various Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies that receive
appropriations. These agencies include BOR, 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) 2015–17 was developed on the basis of
previous budgets and work plans, the GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Process approved by
the AMWG on May 6, 2010, the Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process, version
April 3, 2011, and the May 7, 2014 memorandum from Assistant Secretary and Secretary’s
Designee Anne Castle on development of a tiennial GCDAMP Budget and Work Plan. Additional
consideration was given to meeting the commitments outlined in the following compliance
documents (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 2011 Reclamation Environmental Assessment (EA) and 2012
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for
High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020 (HFE
Protocol); (3) the 2011 Reclamation EA and 2012 FONSI for Non-native Fish Control Downstream
from Glen Canyon Dam (NNFC EA and FONSI); and the 2011 USFWS Final Biological Opinion
on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam including High Flow Experiments and Non-Native Fish
Control (2011 Opinion). Additionally, this budget and work plan was developed in consideration of
the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP
EIS).

The process used to arrive at the FY15–17 budget and work plan was adopted by the AMWG in
2004 and revised in 2010 to a 2-year fixed budget process, and subsequently revised to a triennial
budget process by the GCDAMP Secretary’s Designee on May 7, 2014. The Budget Ad Hoc Group
(BAHG) of the Technical Work Group (TWG), with input from the Cultural Resources Ad Hoc
Group (CRAHG), worked with the BRUC and GCMRC to develop a proposal for the TWG. The
TWG then reviews the proposed budget and work plan and develops a recommendation to the
AMWG.

The FY15–17 budget and work plan was also prepared in consideration of the projected
hydrograph for Lake Powell release for water year (WY) 2015, which is based on forecasted
inflows to Lake Powell and GCD releases determined by the 1996 Record of Decision on the 
operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the 2007 Record of Decision on Interim Guidelines for
Coordinated Operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. It also observes commitments made in the
2007 and 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife biological opinions. The projected hydrograph is based on
best estimates available from BOR’s 24-month study released in May 2014, however, the forecast
is subject to change as further data becomes available. [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf]

|}<!--

----------Strapline immediately below banner---------->
{| style="width:100%; height:50px" border=1px solid #ccc; background:#cedff2
! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[GCDAMP Strategic Plan]] <br> The GCDAMP Strategic Plan (AMPSP) is a long-term plan drafted in August 2001 by GCDAMP and GCMRC participants that identifies the AMWG’s vision, mission, principles, goals, management objectives, information needs, and management actions.

! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[Strategic Science Plan]] <br> The GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (SSP) identifies general strategies for the next 5 years to provide science information responsive to the goals, management objectives, and priority questions as described in the AMPSP and other planning direction approved by the AMWG.

! 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;">

[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf '''GCMRC Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2015-2017]'''

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

==Chapter 1. Introduction== 
Adaptive Management Work Group Costs <br>
AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement  <br>
AMWG Reclamation Travel  <br>
AMWG Facilitation Contract  <br>
Public Outreach  <br>
AMWG Other  <br>

TWG Costs  <br>
TWG Member Travel Reimbursement  <br>
TWG Reclamation Travel  <br>
TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation  <br>
TWG Other  <br>

Administrative Support for NPS Permitting  <br>
Contract Administration  <br>
Science Advisor Contract  <br>
Experimental Fund  <br>
Installation of Acoustic Flow Meters in Glen Canyon Dam Bypass Tubes  <br>
Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund  <br>

Cultural Resources Work Plan  <br>
Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring  <br>
Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP  <br>

==Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Triennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2015–2017== 
Introduction  <br>
Purpose  <br>
Administrative Guidance that Informs the FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan  <br>
Overview of the FY 15–17 Triennial Work Plan  <br>
Allocation of the FY15–17 Budget <br>
References <br>

==Project 1. Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water-Quality Monitoring==

This project conducts water-quality monitoring on Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam
tailwaters. The water-quality monitoring program consists of monthly surveys of the reservoir
forebay and tailwater, as well as quarterly surveys of the entire reservoir, including the Colorado,
San Juan, and Escalante arms. Water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH,
redox potential, turbidity, and chlorophyll concentration are measured throughout the water
column at up to 30 sites on the reservoir (fig. 1), with samples for major ionic constituents,
nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton being collected
at selected sites. The project also includes continuous monitoring of Glen Canyon Dam releases
for water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and chlorophyll
concentration and monthly sampling for major ionic constituents, nutrients, dissolved organic
carbon, chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton below the dam and at Lees Ferry.
The data collected by the project describe the current water quality of Glen Canyon Dam
releases to the downstream ecosystem, as well as describe the current water-quality conditions
and hydrologic processes in the Lake Powell reservoir, which can be used to predict the quality
of future releases from the dam.

It is proposed that the existing water-quality monitoring program will continue through the
FY15–17 period at its current level. The Seabird CTD instrument will continue to be used as the
primary profiling device for reservoir stations. Minor changes may be made to the existing
program in terms of number of stations sampled and the amount and type of samples collected.
Recent data collected from the monitoring program will continue to be published and an
interpretive synthesis of existing data will be developed for publication during the FY15–17
period.

Physical and chemical information from this program was published as Data Series Report
DS-471 (Vernieu, 2013). An updated revision to this report is currently in development.
Biological data will be published in a separate data series report, currently in review. These
reports will be combined in future revisions. All information from this program is currently
stored in the Microsoft Access water-quality database (WQDB).

It is also proposed that a system for online data access and dissemination will be developed
during this period. This will involve migration of the current WQDB database into an Oracle
database to enhance online data availability. A web site will then developed that will allow
access to currently available data and the interactive display of various graphic products
depicting summarized data collected by the program through a map-based user interface. Some
aspects of data management and the development of visualization tools will be made in-house,
while other products will be developed in collaboration with other USGS offices such as the
Wisconsin Science Center’s Wisconsin Internet Mapping office (WiM)
(http://wi.water.usgs.gov/wim/) or the Center for Integrated Data Analytics (CIDA)
(http://cida.usgs.gov/).

The USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) will work
collaboratively with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in efforts to enhance simulation modeling
of Lake Powell Reservoir water quality and limnology. Modeling will utilize the CE-QUAL-W2
model, a 2D water quality and hydrodynamic model, currently maintained by BOR. This model
is currently used to project Glen Canyon Dam release temperatures, and will be enhanced to
answer various research questions relating to the fate of inflow currents, effects of reservoir
drawdowns, and dissolved oxygen dynamics in the reservoir.

The Lake Powell monitoring program continues to be directed and administratively managed
by GCMRC, with cooperation and sole funding provided by BOR under Interagency Agreement
No. R13PG40028, effective through December 31, 2017.

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

This project makes the basic measurements that link dam operations and reservoir releases
to the physical, biological, and sociocultural resources of the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe)
downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. This project conducts the monitoring of stage, discharge,
water quality (water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), suspended
sediment, and bed sediment. Measurements are made at gaging stations located in Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area, Grand Canyon National Park, the Navajo Reservation, and the
Hualapai Reservation and on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The data
collected by this project provide the stream-flow, sediment-transport, sediment-mass-balance,
water-temperature, and water-quality data that are required to link dam operations with the status
of the CRe. In addition, the data collected by this project are used to implement and evaluate the
High Flow Experiment (HFE) Protocol and in evaluations of alternatives being assessed by the
Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS. The data collected by this
project are also used in other physical, ecological, and socio-cultural projects described
elsewhere in this Triennial Work Plan. Other project funds support interpretation of basic data.

==Project 3. Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales== 

This project consists of a set of integrated studies that (a) track the effects of individual High-
Flow Experiments (HFEs, or “controlled floods”) on sandbars and within-channel sediment
storage, (b) monitor the cumulative effect of successive HFEs and intervening operations, and (c)
advance general understanding of sediment transport and eddy sandbar dynamics. While the first
two efforts are focused on monitoring, the latter effort is focused on improving capacity to
predict the effects of dam operations, because management of the Colorado River downstream
from Glen Canyon Dam requires that managers balance the objective to achieve fine-sediment
conservation with other management objectives. Such balancing of objectives requires
comparing predicted outcomes of different dam operation scenarios, such as has been pursued in
the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) process.

The effort to achieve fine-sediment conservation in the Colorado River ecosystem in Marble
and Grand Canyons (CRe) is greatly constrained by the limited annual supply of fine sediments
to the Colorado River from ephemeral tributaries. The challenge of rehabilitating sandbars when
most of the fine-sediment once supplied to the CRe is now stored in Lake Powell reservoir has
been described in many scientific articles and management documents. More than a decade of
monitoring and research has demonstrated that eddy sandbars accumulate sand, as well as small
amounts of clay and silt (hereafter referred to as mud), during short periods of relatively high
flow, but these same sandbars typically erode during flows that occur in the months to years
between the high flows requisite for sandbar building. Adoption of the HFE Protocol in 2012
established a formal procedure whereby seasonal sand and mud (together referred to as fine
sediment) inflows are measured, and high flows are released from Glen Canyon Dam with the
purpose of redistributing that sand and mud from the channel bed to eddies. The long-term effect
of the HFE Protocol depends on the relative “gain” to eddy sandbars that occurs during the short
controlled floods and the intervening “loss” that occurs during other times. The Environmental
Assessment for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental
Releases from Glen Canyon Dam (hereafter referred to as the HFE Protocol EA) asked, "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?

Thus, one of the most important objectives of this project 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 EA.
The monitoring program described here continues the program implemented in the FY13–14
Biennial Work Plan 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. Because these long-term
monitoring sites represent only a small proportion of the total number of sandbars in Marble and
Grand Canyons, this project also includes (1) the analysis of a much larger sample of sandbars,
using airborne remote-sensing data of the entire CRe collected every 4 years, and (2) periodic
measurements of nearly all sandbars within individual 50 to 130 km river segments.

Another critical piece of information that will be needed to evaluate the outcome of the HFE
Protocol and the LTEMP EIS will be the change in total sand storage in long river segments.
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 bar building is the sand that is in
storage within the channel, which is the sum of the sand contributed by the most recent tributary
inputs, all the sand that has accumulated during the decades since Glen Canyon Dam 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 as much sand as is most recently contributed by
the Paria River. Some of the mobilized sand is deposited in eddies where it maintains and builds
eddy sandbars. Some of the sand is eventually transported downstream to Lake Mead reservoir.
The most efficient floods for the purposes of sandbar building are those that maximize eddy
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. If sand storage is maintained or increased,
scientists expect the response to future HFEs to be similar to or better than that observed
following recent HFEs. In contrast, depleted conditions of fine sediment in the active channel are
potentially irreversible and threaten the long-term ability to rehabilitate eddy sandbars. Although
the total amount of sand in the active channel is not known and may never be known, changes in
the topography of the channel measured in this project reveal where fine sediment accumulates,
where it becomes depleted, and whether or not older fine sediment deposits are being
progressively eroded by HFEs and other parts of the flow regime.

This project also includes five research and development components: (1) improving
methods for making sandbar surveys rapidly and at low cost; (2) investigating bedload sand
transport; (3) developing a method to estimate the thickness of submerged sand deposits, (4)
developing a method to map submerged aquatic vegetation, and (5) developing of a new largescale
sandbar deposition/erosion model. These projects are, respectively, designed to improve
monitoring methods, improve estimates of sand transport, develop a new tool to estimate total
sand storage, develop a new tool to map submerged aquatic vegetation and improve acoustic bed
sediment classifications, and develop new tools for predicting how management actions
including HFEs and daily dam operations affect resources.

==Project 4. Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum: Quantifying the relative importance of river-related factors that influence upland geomorphology and archaeological site stability == 

The rate and magnitude of wind transport of sand from active channel sandbars to higher
elevation valley margins potentially affects the stability of archaeological sites and the
characteristics of other cultural and natural resources. The degree to which valley margin areas
are affected by upslope wind redistribution of sand is called “connectivity”. Connectivity is
affected by several factors including the sand source as well as physical and vegetative barriers
to sand transport. The primary hypothesis of this project is that high degrees of connectivity lead
to potentially greater archaeological site stability.

This project is responsive to recommendations from stakeholders in the Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Program. The Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the
tribes, collectively have identified the need for science that will improve understanding of how
cultural resources are linked to modern river processes. This project proposal is composed of two
integrated elements; the first (4.1) is a research element, and the second (4.2) is a monitoring
element. The research element (4.1) consists of three sub-elements that are landscape scale
analyses that will examine the connectivity between attributes of the active channel and
geomorphic processes and patterns at higher elevations (above the 45,000 ft3/s stage) at several
temporal and geographic scales. In the monitoring element (4.2), a year (2015) will be invested
to develop and draft a long-term monitoring plan to evaluate if and how much the interactions
between fluvial, aeolian, and hillslope processes affect the condition of cultural resource sites in
the Colorado River corridor. The monitoring plan will be drafted by USGS scientists with close
collaboration from tribes, National Park Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. The monitoring
plan will be implemented in years 2 and 3 (2016 and 2017, respectively) of the triennial workplan
effort.

==Project 5. Foodbase Monitoring and Research== 

The productivity of the aquatic foodbase, particularly invertebrates, fuels production and
growth of fishes in the Colorado River. However, recent studies by Kennedy and collaborators
have shown that the productivity of this foodbase is low. Further, the foodbase in Grand Canyon
is dominated by only two groups of invertebrates: midges and blackflies, both of which are
small-bodied, relatively low-quality prey. Larger, more nutritious aquatic insects such as
mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies (hereafter, EPT), are virtually absent throughout Glen,
Marble, and Grand Canyons. These conditions of low invertebrate productivity and the absence
of high quality invertebrate prey have resulted in a fishery throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand
Canyons that is food-limited, negatively affecting the abundance of native fishes such as
humpback chub (Gila cypha), as well as the growth of recreationally-important non-native
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). If the factors and stressors affecting this low foodbase
productivity and diversity can be isolated, adaptive management experimentation intended to
ameliorate these stressors, and benefit the productivity and diversity of the aquatic foodbase,
could be considered.

In this proposal, we describe a multi-faceted approach to better understanding the conditions
effecting the low productivity and diversity of the foodbase in the Colorado River, as well as an
experiment to potentially improve these conditions. We focus principally on two methods:
sampling emergent aquatic insect adults on land, and sampling aquatic invertebrate larvae in the
drift. Sampling emergent insects allows for the observation of large-scale patterns in insect
dynamics through time and over large spatial scales, such as throughout the entire Colorado
River in Grand Canyon. In contrast, sampling invertebrate drift allows us to understand the finescale
factors affecting invertebrate populations, particularly during a phase (drifting in the water
column) in which these invertebrates are most available to fish. To a lesser extent, we also
describe the continuation of a monitoring effort to estimate algae production in the Colorado
River, which represents the base of the entire aquatic food web and the food resources available
to these invertebrate populations.

Many of the studies we propose here are logical continuations of projects initiated in FY13–
14, such as an expansion of the citizen science monitoring of emergent insects and the
development of a more mechanistic understanding of the factors controlling invertebrate drift. In
addition, we intend to synthesize published datasets to explore the factors affecting invertebrate
productivity, diversity, and EPT abundance throughout tailwaters in the Intermountain West. We
will couple this synthesis with natural history observations and lab studies of invertebrates in the
Colorado River and adjacent ecosystems. The goal of those studies is to better understand how
the specific insects present in the Colorado River and its tributaries in Glen, Marble, and Grand
Canyons respond to environmental conditions such as altered temperature regimes and daily
hydropeaking. We also propose to carry out insect emergence and drift studies in other Colorado
River Basin tailwaters and in Cataract Canyon to better characterize aquatic foodbase conditions
in reference ecosystems, and to determine whether the foodbase downstream of Glen Canyon is
unique, or broadly similar to other river segments in the region. Finally, based on logic described
below, we identify recruitment limitation of insects as a primary stressor limiting both
invertebrate production and the colonization of EPT in the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and
Grand Canyons. Accordingly, we outline a flow experiment that could be implemented in FY15–
17 involving weekend summer steady flows that may mitigate this recruitment limitation. If
successful, this experiment would improve the short- and long-term productivity and diversity of
the aquatic foodbase and, ultimately, the condition of fish populations and the stability of food
webs in the Colorado River.

==Project 6. Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub Aggregations and Fish Community Dynamics==

Native and nonnative fish populations in Glen and Grand Canyons are key resources of
concern influencing decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions.
To inform these decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of
fish populations, particularly the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), be available to
managers. A suite of adaptive experimental management actions are either underway or being
contemplated to better understand the mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of fish in
the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons and to identify policies that are consistent with
the attainment of management goals. Much effort has been and continues to be focused on
humpback chub and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) both in the reach of the Colorado
River from Glen Canyon Dam to the Little Colorado River (LCR) confluence and in the LCR
itself (see Projects 7 and 9). While this work is important and meets critical information needs, it
is also important to have robust monitoring of mainstem fish populations downstream of the
LCR confluence. Status and trend information is needed to further understand mechanisms
controlling native and nonnative fish population dynamics, determine the effects of dam
operations and other management actions, and identify evolving threats presented by expansion
in range or numbers of nonnative predators. This type of information is also potentially useful in
assessing changes to the Federal Endangered Species Act listing status of humpback chub in
Grand Canyon.

Sampling mainstem humpback chub aggregations has been conducted periodically over the
last two decades. Fish were sampled by hoop and trammel nets at aggregations first described by
Valdez and Ryel (1995). Most captures of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River have
been downstream of the LCR (Persons and others, in preparation). Continuing to sample for
humpback chub in the mainstem river outside of the LCR and the LCR confluence area is
important for monitoring the status of the Grand Canyon population of this endangered species
and determining the effects of management actions like dam operations and translocations.
During the last few years the first 75 miles of the Colorado River downstream of Glen
Canyon Dam has been sampled extensively for fish by several projects including the following
projects in the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s (GCMRC) FY11–12 and
FY13–14 work plans:

*E.2 Juvenile Chub Monitoring Project near the LCR confluence Near Shore Ecology Project; BIO 2.R15.11 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.3 in FY13–14,
*H.2 Rainbow Trout Movement Project, a.k.a. the Rainbow Trout Natal Origins Project; Project Element BIO 2.E18 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.6 in FY13–14, 
*D.4 System Wide Electrofishing Projectl; Project Element BIO 2.M4 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.1 in FY13–14
*H.1 Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Project; Project Element BIO 4.M2 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.2 in FY13–14
*D.7 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey Project; RTELSS, Project Element BIO 4.M2 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.2.2 in FY13–14

The remaining portion of the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam (between
approximately the LCR and Lake Mead) has been sampled using standardized methods since
2000 as described in Project 6.4, the System Wide Electrofishing Project and since 2010 as
described in Project 6.1, the Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Monitoring Project. In
order to improve efficiencies and to reduce duplication of effort, GCMRC and cooperating
agencies conducting fisheries monitoring and research propose to coordinate and/or combine
several project elements in GCRMC’s FY15–17 work plan. These include the Juvenile Chub
Monitoring project and System Wide Electrofishing effort (see Project Elements 7.2 and 6.4) as
well as the Rainbow Trout Natal Origins study and Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring (see Project
Elements 9.1 and 9.2). In general, this will mean a reduction of electrofishing effort in the first
70 miles of the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam and a focus on obtaining
abundance estimates rather than catch per unit effort (CPUE) indices through the updated Lees
Ferry Rainbow Trout Monitoring project (see Project Elements 9.1 and 9.2). Systematic
sampling of the mainstem Colorado River downstream of the Juvenile Chub Monitoring (see
Project Element 7.2) reference site (River Mile (RM) 63-64.5) will continue under Project
Elements 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4 (see Section 4) and will continue to collect and analyze species
composition and CPUE data.

Project 6 is comprised of eight Project Elements and includes monitoring and research
projects in the mainstem Colorado River, with particular emphasis on humpback chub
aggregations. Over the last several years humpback chub in the LCR aggregation have increased
in abundance (Coggins and Walters, 2009; Van Haverbeke and others, 2013; Yackulic and
others, 2014). Humpback chub at many other aggregations have also increased in abundance, and
some aggregations appear to have increased their distribution (Persons and others, in
preparation). Recruitment to aggregations may come from local reproduction (e.g. 30 Mile
aggregation; Andersen and others, 2010; Middle Granite Gorge Aggregation; Douglas and
Douglas, 2007), the LCR aggregation, and translocations to Shinumo and Havasu Creeks.
Annual monitoring of the status and trends of the mainstem humpback chub aggregations has
been identified as a conservation measure in a recent Biological Opinion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2011) and will continue to be monitored in Project Element 6.1, although effort will be
reduced to a single trip per year down from two trips annually in the FY13–14 work plan. We
will also continue to sample in conjunction with the National Park Service (NPS) near Shinumo
Creek and Havasu Creek to assess contribution of translocated humpback chub to mainstem
aggregations.

Understanding recruitment at aggregations continues to be an area of uncertainty. Humpback
chub otolith microchemistry (Hayden and others, 2012; Limburg and others, 2013) was proposed
as a method to determine sources of humpback chub recruitment in the FY13–14 Work Plan.
However, due to Tribal concerns about directed take of humpback chub we were unable to
collect the otoliths necessary for these analyses. During FY15–16 we plan to further evaluate the
use of otolith microchemistry to identify surrogate fish hatched in Shinumo Creek, Havasu
Creek, 30-Mile springs or other locations in Project Element 6.2. We will work with NPS staff to
collect water samples and otoliths from brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout, and other
fishes sacrificed as part of their trout removal activities. We will also make use of any humpback
chub incidentally killed during other sampling efforts. Further, we will place additional emphasis
on catching and marking juvenile humpback chub to assist in determining sources of recruitment
to aggregations. During FY15–16 we propose to evaluate slow shocking and seining as methods
to capture and mark more juvenile humpback chub with passive integrated transponder (PIT)
tags in order to assess juvenile humpback chub survival and recruitment to aggregations. This
will also provide a possible method to assess dispersal of juvenile humpback chub marked in the
LCR with visible implant elastomer (VIE) and PIT tags (see Project Element 7.3).

Project Element 6.3 will continue efforts that began in the FY13–14 work plan to locate
additional aggregations by standardized sampling and by the use of remotely deployed PIT-tag
antennas. GCMRC has had success in deploying relatively portable PIT-tag antennas in the LCR
and proposes to work with NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) personnel to
develop antenna systems that can be deployed at mainstem aggregations and other locations to
detect PIT-tagged fish. If successful, these systems will provide an opportunity for collaborative
citizen science with commercial and scientific river trips whereby river guides could deploy
antennas overnight at camp sites in an attempt to detect PIT-tagged fish in areas not sampled
during mainstem fish monitoring trips.

The System Wide Electrofishing Project (Project Element 6.4) will continue to collect longterm
monitoring data following the methods described in Makinster and others, (2010) and will
evaluate the efficacy of a mark-recapture approach downstream of the LCR confluence. To
eliminate duplicative efforts, we propose that sampling be conducted in areas not sampled by the
Rainbow Trout Natal Origins and the Juvenile Chub Monitoring projects (Project Elements 7.2
and 9.2). We will also increase sampling effort downstream of Diamond Creek to monitor for
native and non-native fishes. Continued concerns over upstream movement of non-native
warmwater predatory species such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and walleye (Sander vitreus)
from Lake Mead highlight the need to continue to monitor the river for non-native fishes.
Electrofishing is effective at capturing bass species, sunfishes (Centrarchidae), and walleye, so
this sampling should detect upstream movements of these species. Channel catfish on the other
hand, are not effectively captured by electrofishing, so monitoring of catfish distribution by
standardized angling (Persons and others, 2013) will continue during electrofishing trips.
Standardized electrofishing sampling is also effective at capturing native sucker species
including flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), bluehead sucker (Catostomus
discobolus), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). Recent captures of razorback sucker
downstream of Diamond Creek by this project have been widely publicized and ongoing
monitoring will help document if this once extirpated species continues its apparent recolonization
of Grand Canyon.

Nonnative brown trout are effective fish predators known to preferentially prey on native
Colorado River fishes including humpback chub (Yard and others, 2011). Determining the
source or sources of this species in Grand Canyon will help scientists and managers better target
efforts aimed at controlling this threat to native fish populations (see Project Element 8.1).
Project Element 6.5 will conduct research on the use of brown trout pigment patterns to identify
natal origins of brown trout; data and images will be collected during the System Wide
Electrofishing Project and other projects that encounter brown trout.
One risk to the Grand Canyon humpback chub population is that it includes only one selfsustaining
spawning population, the LCR aggregation. The USFWS has identified the
establishment of a second self-sustaining spawning population of humpback chub as an
important step towards recovery of this endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1995). Project Element 6.6 will develop plans and conduct necessary compliance activities to
experimentally translocate humpback chub from the LCR to a mainstem aggregation in 2016 or
later.

The Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey (Project Element 6.7 - RTELLS) seasonally
monitors rainbow trout egg deposition and population early life history dynamics, particularly
age-0 survival in Glen Canyon. This project in particular, provides managers with an initial
indication of the annual cohort strength of rainbow trout recruiting into the population. Findings
from this also have relevance to the Natal Origin research project (see Project Element 9.2).
The Lees Ferry Creel Survey (Project Element 6.8) monitors the health of the rainbow trout
fishery and provides information on the influence of Glen Canyon Dam operations, other
management actions, and natural disturbances on recreational fishing. Information on the levels
of direct harvest as well as angler use and satisfaction of the important recreational fishery is also
provided.

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

During 2013–14 we developed models that integrate data collected in the Little Colorado
River (LCR) with data collected by the juvenile chub monitoring (JCM) project to provide a
holistic picture of humpback chub (Gila cypha) population dynamics (Yackulic and others,
2014). This manuscript suggests that chub movement between the LCR and Colorado River prior
to adulthood is relatively rare, with the exception of young-of-the-year outmigration and that
growth and survival rates are very different in these two environments. This journal article also
identified the need for studies of trap avoidance among older humpback chub in the LCR, a need
that can potentially be addressed by increased use of remote technologies for detecting
humpback chub. We then used a modified version of these models to explain interannual
variability in mainstem growth and survival in terms of monthly temperature and estimated
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) abundances in order to support the development of the
Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental
Impact Statement and address the key uncertainty surrounding the relative importance of
rainbow trout and temperature in humpback chub population dynamics (Yackulic and others, in
prep.). While parameter estimates in these models are based on field data collected in the LCR
and JCM, this modelling was aided conceptually by lab experiments exploring impacts of trout
and temperature on chub growth and survival (Ward and others, in prep).

Simulating future dynamics under alternative management strategies as part of the LTEMP
process highlighted the importance of uncertainty associated with several key population
processes, especially the production and outmigration of young-of-the-year humpback chub from
the LCR. Available information suggests that the number of Age-0 chub present in July in the
LCR has varied from roughly 5,000 to 50,000 in recent years and that the overall outmigration
rate can vary from 25% to 75%. To address this uncertainty, already identified in the Grand
Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s workplan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2013–14, we initiated
juvenile humpback chub marking with visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags in the LCR during
early July, a period when humpback chub are just becoming large enough to have a reasonable
chance of surviving in the mainstem. Although LTEMP obligations have delayed a formal
analysis of these data, preliminary work suggests that this effort will allow us to estimate
juvenile humpback chub abundance and outmigration with acceptable precision. We also
analyzed data collected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) from 2001–2013 to
characterize spatio-temporal variation in survival, growth and movement of sub-adult humpback
chub in the LCR (Dzul and others, in review). This work suggests both that winter growth is
strongly and negatively correlated with the extent of winter/spring flooding and that habitat
quality for sub-adult humpback chub is better in upper reaches of the LCR. This follows work by
Vanhaverbeke and others (2013) indicating that when winter/spring flooding was minimal,
juvenile production was poor. Other activities during FY13–14 included pilot work to determine
the best ways to characterize spatio-temporal variation in the food base in FY13, with plans to
rigorously sample the LCR food base in calendar year 2014.

In FY15–17, we will: (a) continue to monitor humpback chub in the LCR and Colorado
River reference site (river mile (RM) 63.0-64.5) and to mark young-of-year humpback chub
throughout the lower 13.6 km of the LCR in July, (b) develop field and analytical techniques to
better use remote technologies for detecting passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags to address
questions of trap avoidance and to potentially minimize future handling of chub, (c) develop new
non-lethal tools for measuring the health and condition of humpback chub in the field, (d)
undertake targeted, cost-effective research to understand mechanisms underlying observed
population processes, including the roles of high CO2 at base flow, gravel limitation, parasites,
and the aquatic food base, and (e) continue to develop models that integrate findings from the
above projects. The proximate goals of these activities is to better understand the relative roles of
LCR hydrology, water quality, intraspecific and interspecific interactions, and mainstem
conditions in humpback chub juvenile life history and adult recruitment, as well as to better
estimate the current adult abundance. The ultimate goal of these activities is to continue to
develop tools that allow us to better predict the impacts of dam operations and other management
activities on humpback chub populations as well as appropriately account for uncertainty in these
predictions. Specific questions of interest include:

#To what extent does young-of-the-year humpback chub production and outmigration from the LCR vary between years and how is this variation driven by LCR hydrology and intraspecific interactions (i.e., cannibalism and competition)? 
#What are the drivers of interannual and spatial variation in survival and growth of juvenile and sub-adult humpback chub? In particular, what are the roles of LCR and mainstem conditions in the overall trajectory of the population?
#Are there factors, such as heterogeneity in skip-spawning rates, heterogeneity in adult humpback chub capture probabilities in the JCM, or trap avoidance in the LCR that bias estimates of the adult population size and population processes?

Juvenile humpback chub are the most sensitive life stage to mainstem conditions and an
understanding of their life history is the key to predicting the influence of dam operations on this
species. Prior to the Near Shore Ecology (NSE) project (2009–2011) and the more recent JCM
project (2012–current), our understanding of humpback chub early life history was limited to
back-calculations of cohort strength (number of fish surviving to adulthood from a given hatch
year) derived from abundance estimates of humpback chub greater than 200 mm and believed to
be four years old (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009). However, given the
disparity in growth rates between humpback chub living in the LCR and Colorado River
(Yackulic and others, 2014) this approach was almost certainly misleading as humpback chub
could be anywhere from 4–10 years old when they reach 200 mm depending on where they had
spent most of their time (LCR or mainstem Colorado River) and what environmental conditions
had been like in those locations.

Since 2009, we have developed the field techniques (including a fixed reference site in the
Colorado River) and analytical methods that allow us to understand humpback chub early life
history in the detail required to begin to tease apart the effects of variation in population
processes caused by mainstem temperature, trout abundance, and conditions in the LCR. For
example, in support of the LTEMP process we were able to fit relationships between monthly
temperature and estimated rainbow trout abundance and juvenile humpback chub survival and
growth using only data from 2009–2013 that accurately predicted trends in adult humpback chub
numbers from 1989–2009 (Figure 1). While there is still room for improvement in these models,
this represents a dramatic step in our ability to predict the consequences of management options.
While conditions in the LCR are not directly affected by dam operations, they nonetheless play a
vital role in determining the degree to which temperature and rainbow trout numbers in the
Colorado River must be managed (Figure 2). For example, if juvenile humpback chub
production and export are high, this may suggest less need for rainbow trout management and/or
lower flows to increase water temperatures in the mainstem. Alternatively, a better understanding
of the factors leading to increased humpback chub production could provide decision makers
opportunities to strategically implement management actions in years when they would have the
largest effect. For example, the 2000 Low Steady Summer Flow experiment may have been
ineffective simply because it followed two years of potentially minimal production of juvenile
chub. Improved information about the drivers of humpback chub population dynamics could
have helped managers and scientists plan this experiment such that it occurred when conditions
were more likely to result in a detectable response. Likewise, management actions such as
mechanical removal of nonnative fishes will be much more effective if they occur in years of
high humpback chub production. If variation in production is primarily driven by exogenous
factors (e.g., extent of flooding) as opposed to endogeneous factors (e.g., competition between
cohorts) this also has implications for long-term population dynamics.

With respect to adult humpback chub, key uncertainties revolve around our understanding of
capture probability and movement. In particular, heterogeneity in capture probability in the LCR
caused by some adult humpback chub (especially potential residents) avoiding hoop nets could
lead to underestimates of abundance. At the same time, the potential for temporary emigration in
the JCM reach is a cause for concern and could lead to overestimates of abundance. Lastly, a
better understanding of skip-spawning in adult humpback chub is essential because many adults
are only vulnerable to capture during spring sampling in the LCR and thus inferences about their
survival and abundance depends on assumptions about the skip-spawning process. Answering
the above uncertainties is dependent both on new data streams from remote tag readers and
intellectual investment into developing the appropriate models to incorporate this information
and test hypotheses.

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

This project encompasses two ongoing management actions and two new projects, all
designed to increase survival of juvenile native fishes in Grand Canyon. In addition, we propose
to convene a protocol evaluation panel comprised of external experts to conduct a review of the
fisheries research, monitoring, and management actions conducted in support of the Glen
Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). In FY15–17 we will continue
ongoing mechanical removal of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo
trutta) using electrofishing near the confluence of Bright Angel creek, in support of Grand
Canyon National Park’s goals to reduce nonnative fish abundance in and around Bright Angel
Creek for the benefit of juvenile native fish. We will also continue to translocate juvenile
humpback chub (Gila cypha) annually from the Little Colorado River (LCR) into areas within
the LCR and continue to support translocation efforts into Havasu Creek and Shinumo Creek, to
increase survival and distribution of humpback chub. In FY16 or FY17 we will participate in a
review by external experts of these activities and other fisheries projects (see Projects 6, 7, and
9). The review of Project 8 activities will emphasize evaluation of the effectiveness of these
experimental actions in meeting GCDAMP or National Park Service (NPS) goals and objectives
as appropriate, and the panelists will be asked to make recommendations as to how projects can
be adapted to meet project goals and objectives and whether the continuation of these efforts are
warranted in future years. NPS will also consider the review panel’s recommendations, but any
changes in implementation are under the discretion of the NPS consistent with the
Comprehensive Fish Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park (NPS, 2013). This
project also includes two new project elements that will inform future potential management
actions: 1). An assessment of invasive aquatic species within the LCR drainage, to evaluate
potential risks to humpback chub populations and 2.) Genetic monitoring of humpback chub to
confirm that ongoing management activities do not have detrimental effects on the genetics of
the Grand Canyon population of this endangered species.

==Project 9. Understanding the Factors Determining Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and Movement of Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons ==

Over the past few decades, electrofishing and creel monitoring data collected by Arizona
Game and Fish Department (AGFD) in Glen Canyon and Lees Ferry has shown that the rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fishery is characterized by three undesirable properties, including:
(1) instability in population size that has led to decadal cycles of high and low fish abundance;
(2) increased potential for negative interactions between rainbow trout and native fishes,
especially the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), primarily due to rainbow trout
population expansion downstream (Yard and others, 2011); and (3) an absence of the large
rainbow trout that are highly valued by the angling community (Schmidt and others, 1998).
Accordingly, much of the recent biological research conducted in Glen and Marble Canyons has
focused on understanding factors that influence the size and health of the rainbow trout fishery
(Korman and Campana, 2009; Anderson and others, 2012; Cross and others, 2013), as well as
determining how Glen Canyon Dam operations and other factors may influence interactions
between non-native trout and native species downriver (Yard and others, 2011; Korman and
others, 2012; Melis and others, 2012).

These undesirable properties have also been a key concern to decision makers involved with
the development of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan
(LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement. Fisheries modelling conducted to support the
LTEMP process has identified a number of factors that lead to uncertainty in our ability to
predict rainbow trout responses to flow management. Uncertainties identified prior to modelling
as “critical” included the degree to which the seasonal timing of high flow experiments (HFEs)
versus other factors contributes to variation in the strength of the trout recruitment response, and
the degree to which experimental trout management flows (TMFs), if implemented, could limit
rainbow trout recruitment in Glen Canyon (as well as other chub related uncertainties – see
Project 7). The modelling also included other uncertainties, including the uncertainty in
recruitment-flow relationships, rates of rainbow trout outmigration from Glen Canyon, and the
degree to which larger rainbow trout populations in Lees Ferry limit trout growth. Modelling
revealed that these other uncertainties had a large impact on variation in predictions, a similar
effect to the “critical” uncertainties, and generally larger uncertainty in hydrologic traces over the
next 20 years. Resolving uncertainty in the “critical” uncertainties as well as the recruitmentflow
relationships will require the continuation of sampling focused on juvenile rainbow trout
recruitment (i.e., RTELLS) alongside a well-designed plan for testing different flow management
strategies (assuming that refining these uncertainties is necessary for management). Uncertainties
in our ability to predict outmigration rates and growth, on the other hand, requires a combination
of mark-recapture techniques which provide more precise estimates of movement and survival
parameters, and process levels studies to better understand how movement and growth might
respond to future conditions.

The Natal Origins Project (see Project Element H.2 in the GCMRC FY13–14 workplan) was
designed to address the need for mark-recapture studies to better understand rainbow trout
population dynamics, especially movement. Previous modelling work using just catch data found
it difficult to parse out whether local reproduction in Marble Canyon contributed meaningfully to
populations or whether population dynamics were driven primarily by outmigration from the
Lees Ferry reach (Korman and others, 2012). Preliminary results from the Natal Origins study
suggest that movement is lower than expected, however, it is unclear whether movement rates
may vary over time either as fish age or in response to changing environmental conditions.
Furthermore, it is unclear how well these drift-feeding fish can maintain locally self-sufficient
populations in Marble Canyon where environmental factors (i.e., reduced underwater light due to
intermittent periods of high turbidity) may influence their ability to effectively forage (Kennedy,
unpublished data). Another unknown is why local reproduction does not occur in Marble Canyon
more than it does in Glen Canyon (Korman and others, 2012; also see Project 10).
Physiologically, fish that exhibit reduced foraging capacity because of low light conditions
and/or prey size and availability will often not be able to successfully spawn since gamete
development is energetically costly (Hutchings, 1994; Hutchings and others, 1999). For the
FY15–17 workplan, we developed a suite of research and monitoring projects that will elucidate
some of the mechanisms behind changes in trout abundance, survival, movement, reproduction,
and growth in Glen and Marble Canyons. These research efforts will provide information that
can be used to better understand the potential for negative interactions between non-native trout
and native species like humpback chub, and perhaps identify experimental treatment options for
mitigating high rainbow trout abundance downstream of Lees Ferry.

Since the early 1990’s the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has monitored the
Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery via electrofishing in multiple seasons, providing data that has
fostered the development of research projects to investigate causal mechanisms behind changes
in population and trout size over time. These data have been used to develop catch per unit effort
(CPUE) indices as a surrogate for population size, but other research and monitoring programs
have commenced that estimate population size via more robust mark-recapture methods. To
reduce redundancy between programs and optimize the utility of data generated (e.g., mark recapture
population estimates in lieu of CPUE), a transition is needed from current research and
monitoring efforts to a longer-term monitoring program that maintains a robust multi-pass mark recapture
effort necessary to generate reliable estimates of vital rates for rainbow trout in Glen
and Marble Canyons. We propose to develop and implement a plan for this transition during
FY2015-17. Monitoring of juvenile trout will also continue under the Rainbow Trout Early Life
Stage Survey (RTELSS) project (Project Element 6.7), while creel data from the Lees Ferry
fishery will continue to be collected by AGFD (Project Element 6.8). Collectively, these
monitoring data are essential to the management of the Lees Ferry trout fishery because they
provide an indication of the influence of Glen Canyon Dam operations and other naturally
occurring disturbances in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) on the health of the rainbow trout
fishery.

In addition to monitoring adult and juvenile rainbow trout populations, a suite of new
research activities will improve our understanding of the mechanisms that drive rainbow trout
population dynamics as they relate to dam operations and flow management actions.
Specifically, these research projects will target questions related to characteristics of the physical
habitat (e.g., channel-bed texture, water temperature, turbidity, water depth, and flow) and food
base that may limit trout growth, size, and reproduction including: (a) a quantification of the
energy (lipid) reserves of drift-feeding trout in Glen and Marble Canyons to examine potential
drivers of trout growth, movement, survival, and reproduction under varying light intensities prea nd
post-monsoon; (b) a morphometric analysis of feeding structures in drift feeding fish to
assess whether feeding efficiency is constrained by the size of invertebrate prey in the CRe; (c) a
meta-analysis of data on the effects of light intensity, prey size, predator size, and turbidity on
visual reactive distances of drift feeding fish, which will be used to develop an encounter rate
model that predicts how light intensity and prey size affects trout foraging success and growth in
Glen and Marble Canyons; (d) a laboratory study to assess the feasibility of using dam
operations following fine sediment inputs (sub-sand sized) into Marble Canyon so as to assess
whether or not managing turbidity is feasible as a trout management tool during minimum volume
dam release years; (e) development of bioenergetics models to quantify the effects of
turbidity and food availability on trout growth in Marble Canyon; (f) an assessment of the
mechanisms that limit trout growth in other tailwaters using data collected during the tailwater
synthesis project; (g) development of population dynamic models that assess growth,
reproduction and movement of rainbow trout between Glen and Marble Canyons; and (h) an
evaluation of the effects of fall High Flow Experiments (HFE) on the growth, survival,
movement, and condition of young-of-the-year rainbow trout via comparison of data from HFE
and non-HFE sampling years. Collectively, results from these monitoring and research projects
will be used to identify key drivers behind changes in rainbow trout population size, movement,
survival, reproduction, size, and condition that will be used to better manage the trout fishery
while protecting endangered fish populations in the CRe.

==Project 10. Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater fishery end? - Integrating Fish and Channel Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam ==

Glen Canyon Dam’s rainbow trout tailwater fishery (hereafter, GCD tailwater) begins in the
project’s tailrace, but where does it end? The serial discontinuity concept for impounded rivers
was first described by Ward and Stanford (1983), whereby recovery of river ecosystems
impaired by dams is predicted to increase with distance below dams; often influenced by
locations of downstream tributaries that to some degree add back resources lost to upstream
reservoirs. The Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) is composed of several river segments
extending from the forebay of GCD to the western boundary of GCNP, and has been studied
extensively for the past five decades (Gloss and others, 2005; Schmidt and Grams, 2011a).
However, it remains unclear how long-term trends in the river’s channel morphology in response
to dam operations, will combine with climate-change induced trends in downstream quality-of water
(QW) to influence the exotic rainbow trout tailwater fishery and native fish in the CRe.
Stream forecasting under current climate change for the southwestern US and Colorado River
suggests dryer conditions are already occurring under global warming (see chaps. 8 & 20 of the
2014 National Climate Assessment: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report).

Reduced water storage in Lake Powell since 2001, has already resulted in warmer GCD
releases; a trend that has significantly influenced the discontinuity distance and recovery relative
to the river’s altered thermal regime in Grand Canyon over the last 14 years. Whether exotic or
native fish species in GCNP will benefit more from these somewhat warmer, but still unnaturally
cold releases under both drier and warmer conditions below GCD remains highly uncertain.
Located 15 miles below GCD, the confluence with the Paria River is typically referred to as the
downstream terminus of the “Lees Ferry” recreational trout fishery, and is also the approximate
boundary between Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park
(GCNRA and GCNP, respectively). However, rainbow trout are also found below the Paria and
Little Colorado Rivers, more than 75 miles downstream of the dam (Makinster and others, 2010).
Recent modeling studies suggest that sand-sized sediment can be a significant limiting factor in
the spawning success of trout in gravel-bed settings, and may be more important than finer
sediments in limiting flow and reducing levels of dissolved oxygen needed by incubating trout
eggs within redds (Pattison and others, 2012; Sear and others, 2012). The highly sporadic and
intermittent nature of flooding and sediment production from the Paria River results in periods
when the Colorado River’s bed and water quality may or may not be greatly affected by fine sediment
deliveries from this important tributary. Paria River flow volumes are relatively small
and typically have little influence on the now-altered temperature regime of the Colorado River
below Glen Canyon. Therefore, the effective “discontinuity distance” below GCD may be highly
variable through time relative to the Paria River’s location below the dam.

Ellis and Jones (2013) conclude that at least two recovery gradients exist in regulated rivers,
with the thermal recovery gradient typically being the longest. To improve understanding about
discontinuity distance(s) associated with the GCD tailwater, this interdisciplinary research
project proposes to integrate new and existing channel mapping methods with ongoing fisheries
monitoring and analyses using a variety of information about the geometry of channel margins,
bed-sediment characteristics (softer (sand and finer) and harder (gravel or bedrock) substrates),
and quality of water (QW) data (including, flow, water temperature and turbidity or total
suspended sediment). This project’s aim is to evaluate the potential effects of physical processes
(water temperature and sediment input frequency) on native and nonnative fish dynamics. The
basic questions being asked are: 1) How do seasonal fine-sediment inputs, high flow events and
dam release temperatures affect downstream spawning for rainbow trout, and rearing habitat for
trout and humpback chub? and, 2) Do fall-timed pulse flows extend the rainbow trout fishery
downstream toward or beyond the Little Colorado River? Sources of information needed to
address these questions are shown in figure 1.

The CRe’s thermal recovery gradient has moved upstream since 2002, in response to reduced
Lake Powell storage, while highly variable point sources of fine sediment influencing turbidity remained fixed.
This information has management implications, particularly below GCNRA where rainbow
trout are of concern relative to native fish conservation in GCNP. Understanding the
relationships between trout life history, and abiotic and biotic processes affected by specific dam
operations and climate change will provide greater insight about strategies for co-managing
native and nonnative fisheries between Lakes Powell and Mead. Project findings may also be
transferable to inform management of other Colorado River basin tailwaters where similar
challenges in co-management of native and nonnative sport fisheries exist (see Trammel, 2010;
Clarkson and Marsh, 2010).

As shown in figure 1, this project intends to build on the numerous recent achievements of
several FY13–14 projects, including near real time monitoring of flow, QW and suspended sediment
transport (Topping and others, Project 2), annual channel mapping of sandbars (Grams
and others, Project 3), quarterly monitoring of natal origins (NO) of rainbow trout and humpback
chub juvenile survival (Korman and Yard, Project 9), and ongoing monitoring of the CRe’s food
base (Kennedy and others, Project 5). Proposed interdisciplinary analyses of fish and channel map
data also critically depend upon the capabilities of the GCMRC’s GIS Services and Support
project, as well as GCMRC’s abundant existing remote sensing data (Gushue and others, Project
14).

We propose to use both new and existing channel mapping data (Table 1) to advance an
integrated physical and biological outcome that is only possible owing to ongoing QW and
channel monitoring, as well as NO and food base field monitoring during 2015-16. Outcomes
from other monitoring projects focused on riparian vegetation and cultural resources (Projects 11
and 12) will also be considered in terms of channel-shoreline changes in NO study reaches as
appropriate and available during project synthesis in 2017.

==Project 11. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis of Riparian Vegetation, Landform Change and Aquatic-Terrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities ==

Riparian vegetation affects physical processes and biological interactions along the channel
downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The presence and expansion of riparian vegetation promotes
bank stability, diminishes the magnitude of scour and fill during floods, and has a role in wildlife
habitat and recreational values. This project utilizes annual field measurements and digital
imagery for integrated monitoring of changes in vegetation assessed within a hydro-geomorphic
context. Research elements of this project utilize the monitoring data to explore the utility of
plant response-guilds to probabilistically evaluate and assess wildlife habitat, and integrate the
response guilds with a 22-year topographic survey record for retrospective analyses of
topographic change of 20 sandbars. This project builds upon accomplishments associated with
the FY13/14 Work Plan, provides information that support stakeholder needs as identified by
guiding documents developed by the Adaptive Management Program, and furthers our
understanding of the role of riparian vegetation in ecosystem processes in a regulated river
ecosystem.

The objectives and elements of this monitoring and research project are:
# Measurement and analysis of plant cover and species presence to assess change as related to the geomorphic setting, elevation above the channel, and flow regime (Project Element 11.1)
# Mapping changes in woody vegetation at the landscape scale through image processing, classification, and analysis (Project Element 11.2)
# Utilizing vegetation response-guilds for integrated research of sandbars and riparian vegetation (Project Element 11.3)
# Use multiple sampling approaches and historic data sets to quantify the strength of aquatic-terrestrial linkages and the relative importance of vegetation change and aquatic production in driving the population dynamics of a subset of the terrestrial fauna (Project Element 11.4).
# A review and assessment of nonnative plant control and native plant restoration efforts along regulated segments of the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers (Project Element 11.5).

Each of these objectives and the associated project elements inform stakeholders about the
status of vegetation and support analysis of vegetation’s role in the ecological, physical,
sociocultural responses to dam operations.

==Project 12. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Culturally-Important Plants in the Colorado River Ecosystem: A Pilot Study to Explore Relationships between Vegetation Change and Traditional Cultural Values==

The river corridor landscape in lower Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park has
undergone significant change during the past several decades. Some of those changes, especially
in terms of vegetation, are the result of river regulation by Glen Canyon Dam. The Glen Canyon
Dam Adaptive Management Program supports a $10 million program of research and monitoring
to study and document linkages between river regulation and riparian responses; however, few
GCDAMP studies have attempted to understand how the changes being documented by GCMRC
scientists affect cultural perceptions and values of the diverse stakeholders in the GCDAMP.
This project proposes to begin to fill that gap by undertaking a pilot study to evaluate how
changes in the riparian assemblage of the river corridor, and specifically in the distribution and
abundance of culturally-important plant species, has affected attributes of the landscape that are
culturally-important to Native American tribes.

This project will involve holding two workshops with tribal stakeholders, riparian ecologists
and social scientist to explore and discuss linkages between changes in plant distributions and
abundance and affects to the cultural values associated with plants. We will use these workshops
to further refine research questions and directions related to changes in the riparian system that
tribal participants would like to explore through future research and monitoring. As part of this
project, we will compile and synthesize available data focused initially on a subset of culturally424
important plant species and conduct some exploratory analyses; however, the larger aim of this
project is to initiate a dialog on how to evaluate changes in the river corridor landscape that are
due wholly or in part to dam operations in terms of the affects that these changes may have on
cultural values and human perceptions of the landscape, especially those values that are
important to tribal participants in the GCDAMP.

This project is intended to serve the interests of the tribes involved in the GCDAMP, as well
as the interests of all GCDAMP stakeholders, in several important respects. At a general level,
this project proposes to utilize a combination of western scientific data about vegetation in
combination with traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to interpret landscape changes from
tribal perspectives and assess how observed changes to culturally-important plant species affect
cultural values associated with the riparian corridor. This information will help to inform DOI
managers and GCDAMP stakeholders about how changes in culturally-valued vegetation species
of the river corridor’s riparian landscape affect cultural resource values of tribal participants in
the GCDAMP. More specifically, this project will: 1) integrate Native American values and
traditional ecological knowledge in a collaborative GCMRC-sponsored science effort that
assesses potential dam effects to culturally-valued plant components of the Colorado River
riparian landscape; 2) utilize traditional ecological knowledge to identify plant species of cultural
importance to multiple tribes, with a focus on plants that are dependent on and potentially
affected by changes in river hydrology; 3) compile and synthesize existing scientific and
ethnobotanical information about a subset of culturally-valued plant resources; and 4) utilize a
combination of traditional ecological knowledge and western scientific information to further
enhance understanding of how dam operations and other potential agents of change affect
cultural resource values in the CRe. If, after completing this initial study, tribes decide to
incorporate the results of this pilot study into their monitoring programs, this could provide
another mechanism for further enhancing knowledge transfer between tribal elders, youth, and
non-tribal scientists in the context of tribal monitoring programs. In addition, this project
supports the interests of multiple GCDAMP stakeholders who would like to see a variety of
approaches, including more holistic and qualitative methods, used to assess the effects of Glen
Canyon Dam operations on the riparian landscape and the diverse cultural values of the Colorado
River corridor. Furthermore, it is aligned with the new Department of Interior Secretarial
directive to use a landscape approach for assessing and mitigating effects of energy-related
projects on federal lands (DOI 2013, Secretarial Order No.330).

==Project 13. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research==

During the past three decades, socioeconomic monitoring and research in the Glen Canyon
Environmental Studies and Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) have
been limited (Hamilton and others, 2010). Previous research has indicated that the economic
value of recreation and other downstream resources are impacted by Glen Canyon Dam (GCD)
operations; however, because these studies were conducted 20 to 30 years ago, the findings are
out-of-date, as dam operations and resource conditions have changed since that time (Bishop and
others, 1987; Welsh and others, 1995; U.S. Department of Interior, 1996; USGS, 2005).
This project is designed to identify recreation and tribal preferences for, and values of,
downstream resources and evaluate how preference and value are influenced by GCD operations.
In addition, the research will integrate economic information with data from long-term and
ongoing physical and biological monitoring and research studies led by the Grand Canyon
Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to develop a decision support system that will
improve the ability of the GCDAMP to evaluate and prioritize management actions, monitoring
and research (Hamilton and others, 2010).

This project involves three related socioeconomic monitoring and research studies. These
studies include: (a) evaluation of the impact of GCD operations on regional economic
expenditures and economic values associated with angling in the Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area (GCNRA) downstream from GCD, and whitewater floating in Grand Canyon
National Park (GCNP) that begins at Lees Ferry (Project Element 13.1); (b) assessment of the
impact of GCD operations on tribal preference for and value of downstream resources (Project
Element 13.2); and (c) development of decision methods, using economic metrics, to evaluate
management actions and prioritize monitoring and research on resources downstream of GCD
(Project Element 13.3).

This project will be coordinated with related economic research efforts implemented by the
National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in conjunction with
the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact
Statement (LTEMP EIS). The NPS is conducting research to provide current economic values of
ecosystem resources downstream of GCD. In addition, Argonne National Laboratory, contracted
through Reclamation, has made significant advancements in the power system analysis modeling
for the LTEMP EIS that provide information on the economic value of hydropower production at
GCD under different management alternatives. These coordinated efforts to determine individual
preferences for and economic values of downstream resources, and the development of decision
methods to improve decision making abilities of GCDAMP are necessary to evaluate and
prioritize management, monitoring, and research decisions.

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

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) continues to play a critical role in nearly all of
GCMRC’s science efforts and is prevalent in many of the projects proposed in the FY2015-17
Triennial Work Plan. It is used across disciplines and is itself a powerful tool for integrating
geospatial data collected by many different projects. The GIS Services and Support project is the
epicenter of GCMRC’s geospatial knowledge and support for a broad range of activities. It
supports acquisition of remote sensing overflight data and river-based data collection efforts,
provides geospatial expertise across all resources of interest, maintains and preserves all
geospatial data holdings, and produces a wide range of cartographic, geographic and analytical
output in support of GCMRC’s science projects. Linkages to other projects in this work plan are
addressed in the Geospatial Data Analysis element of this project (14.1.1.) and more specifically
outlined in Table 1 at the end of this project description. This project provides a high-level of
support to other GCMRC projects in the form geospatial data processing and analysis, geospatial
data management, and the development of web-based services and applications that provide
access to GCMRC’s geospatial data holdings.

As we move into a new planning cycle, an opportunity exists to promote a vision of how a
GIS project will successfully function within GCMRC and meet the current and future needs of
scientists, managers and the public alike. Most work performed within this project falls within
one of three main tenets: Geospatial Data Analysis, Geospatial Data Management, and Access to
Geospatial Data Holdings. These concepts are not new, and have been a part of GCMRC work
in various forms over the last 15 years or more. This project description affords us a chance to
more clearly define each of these elements and how they relate to individual projects as well as
GCMRC’s overall mission.

==Project 15. Administration== 

The USGS Administration budget covers salaries for the communications coordinator, the
librarian, and the budget analyst for GCMRC, in addition to monetary awards for all GCMRC
personnel. The vehicle section covers GSA vehicle costs including monthly lease fee, mileage
costs, and any costs for accidents and damage. DOI vehicles are also included in this section of
the budget to pay for vehicle gas, maintenance, and replacements costs. Leadership personnel
covers salary for the GCMRC Chief and Deputy Chief, half the salary for two program
managers, and some of the travel and training costs for these personnel. AMWG/TWG travel
covers the cost of GCMRC personnel to travel to the AMWG and TWG meetings. SBSC
Information Technology (IT) overhead covers GCMRCs IT equipment costs. Logistics base
costs covers salaries and travel/training. These base costs also include a $35,000 contribution to
the equipment and vehicles working capital fund.

==Appendices==
Appendix 2-A. Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Recommendation   <br>
Appendix 2-B. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget   <br>
Appendix 2-C. Fiscal Year 2016 Budget   <br>
Appendix 2-D. Fiscal Year 2017 Budget   <br>
Appendix 3. Logistics and Schedules of River Trips and Field Work   <br>
Appendix 4. TWG Triennial Budget Input FY15–17 Consensus by full TWG on April 9, 2014   <br> 

|}


<!--

--------------------------------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;"|

*Back to [[GCDAMP Planning]]
*Back to the [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 Annual Report 2017.pdf| GCMRC FY 2017 Annual Project Report ]]
*[[Media:GCMRC FY16 Annual Report.pdf| GCMRC FY 2016 Annual Project Report ]]
*[[Media:FY15 GCMRC Annual Report.pdf| GCMRC FY 2015 Annual Project Report ]]
*[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf GCMRC Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2015-2017]
*[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16oct18/TWP_Protocol_Paper_Clean16oct06.pdf GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Workplan Protocol Paper (10-6-2016)]
*[[Media:GCDAMP Continuity and Strategic Direction memo 2016.pdf| Memo from Jennifer Gimbel on GCDAMP continuity and strategic direction dated July 8, 2016]]

|-
! <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;"|

'''2018'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-01-25-twg-meeting/Attach_05a.pdf End of FY 2017 Reporting]

'''2017'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_09c.pdf GCMRC Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_09b.pdf Draft GCMRC Fiscal Year 2017 ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_05.pdf End of Fiscal Year 2016 Reporting]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_09d.pdf GCMRC FY 2017 Budget Update]

'''2016'''
*[[Media:GCMRC FY16 Annual Report.pdf| GCMRC FY 2016 Annual Project Report ]]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_03a.pdf Fiscal Year 2017 Budget and Workplan, and Overview of Reclamation FY17 Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_03b.pdf GCMRC FY2017 Work Plan and Budget]

'''2015'''
*[[Media:FY15 GCMRC Annual Report.pdf| GCMRC FY 2015 Annual Project Report ]]
*[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGTU9xOFhSNmVGZVk/view Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2015-06-11-twg-meeting/Attach_01.pdf Bureau of Reclamation Overview of FY15-17 Budget]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2015-05-28-amwg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf FY2016 Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2015-05-28-amwg-meeting/Attach_04b.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2015-04-21-twg-meeting/Attach_05a.pdf Overview of Reclamation Budget for FY2016]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2015-02-25-amwg-meeting/Attach_09a.pdf FY15-17 Budget, and Overview of Reclamation FY15-17]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2015-04-21-twg-meeting/Attach_05b.pdf GCMRC Budget for FY2016 ]'''

'''2014'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_06a.pdf Proposed FY2015-17 Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_06c.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget Considerations with proposed Cultural Resources Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_06d.pdf Final Draft GCMRC Work Plan and Budget]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_06f.pdf Final FY2015-17 Budget and Work Plan (approved by the AMWG on August 28, 2014) ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-06-24-twg-meeting/Attach_05a.pdf AIF and FY15-17 Triennial Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-06-24-twg-meeting/Attach_05b.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget Considerations]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-06-24-twg-meeting/Attach_05c.pdf Development of the FY15-17 GCMRC Work Plan and Budget]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-06-24-twg-meeting/Attach_07.pdf Combined PPTs on GCMRC Proposed Projects]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-06-24-twg-meeting/Attach_08.pdf Comments from AGFD on FY15-17 Budget and Work Plan and GCMRC Response to AGFD]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-06-24-twg-meeting/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf FY15-17 Budget and Work Plan revised August 1, 2014]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-06-24-twg-meeting/July15_Draft_Minutes-gkrev.pdf Draft Minutes from TWG WebEx/CC held on August 4, 2014 and GCMRC Budget Presentation]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-05-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_02a.pdf GCDAMP FY 2015-17 Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-05-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_02b.pdf Memo from Anne Castle Dated May 7, 2014, to Jack Schmidt (GCMRC) and Glen Knowles (USBR), Subject: GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-05-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_02c.pdf Bureau of Reclamation Budget and Work Plan--Fiscal Years 2015-17]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-05-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_02d.pdf GCMRC Triennial Work Plan Prospectus--Fiscal Years 2015-17]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-05-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_02e.pdf Development of a New GCMRC Budget and Workplan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-05-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_02g.pdf Memo from Shane Capron (BAHG Chair) and TWG to Deputy AS-WS Lori Caramanian Dated April 22, 2014, Subject: The TWG Report on Budget Issues for Review by the Department of the Interior on FY 2015-17 GCDAMP Budget and Work Plan and BAHG Report, Initial FY 2015-17 Budget and Work Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-05-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_02h.pdf Memo from Executive Committee to TWG Chair Dated May 19, 2014, Subject: Preliminary Review Comments on GCMRC Science Plan]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-02-19-amwg-meeting/Attach_10a.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program FY2015-16 Budget and GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by AMWG on 5/6/10;]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-02-19-amwg-meeting/Attach_10b.pdf Work Plan and Overview of Reclamation FY15-16 Budget Considerations ]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf TWG FY2015-16 Biennial Budget Discussion]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/Attach_04b.pdf GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Paper dated May 6, 2010]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/Attach_04c.pdf Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process – Amended on March 20, 2011, Table 1]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/Attach_04d.pdf GCMRC Budget Update]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/Attach_04e.pdf Science Questions and Information Needs Identified in the 2013-14 GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan Draft October 2013 (not reviewed by GCMRC)]

'''2013'''
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-11-06-twg-meeting/Attach_03a.pdf Budget Development 2015-16]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-11-06-twg-meeting/Attach_03b.pdf GCDAMP Budget Process Paper Dated May 6, 2010]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-11-06-twg-meeting/Attach_03c.pdf Budget Process Paper Amenda March 20, 2011 → Table 1]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-11-06-twg-meeting/Attach_03d.pdf GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2013-14]
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-11-06-twg-meeting/Attach_03e.pdf BWP Science Questions ]

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


|}