GCDAMP- Questions and Answers Page - Revision history

Jthiriot: fix

2014-02-13T17:26:47Z

fix

Jthiriot: fix

2014-02-13T17:13:25Z

fix

Jthiriot: fix

2014-02-13T17:08:01Z

fix

Jthiriot: fix

2014-02-13T17:02:16Z

fix

Jthiriot: add other projects

2014-02-13T17:01:16Z

add other projects

Jthiriot: add

2014-02-13T16:54:59Z

add

Jthiriot: add projects I and J

2014-02-13T16:45:38Z

add projects I and J

Show changes

Jthiriot: add project h

2014-02-13T16:31:35Z

add project h

Show changes

Jthiriot: add project g

2014-02-13T16:21:20Z

add project g

Jthiriot: finish project f

2014-02-13T16:16:23Z

finish project f

Show changes

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 {| class = "wikitable sortable" | border="1" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size:90%"
-!|Num!!Project, Elements, and Sub-elements!!Project/Element summary (2012-13 BWP)!!Research Questions, Uncertainties, & Information Needs identified in the 2012-13 BWP!!Relevant Research Questions & Information Needs identified from:!!Project timeline: When will data obtained through this project be able to answer the relevent science questions?!!Project funding (FY)!!Reporting links!!NOTES
+!|Num!!Project, Elements, and Sub-elements!!Project/Element summary (from 2012-2013 BWP)!!Research Questions, Uncertainties, & Information Needs identified in the 2012-13 BWP!!Relevant Research Questions & Information Needs identified from:!!Project timeline: When will data obtained through this project be able to answer the relevent science questions?!!Project funding (FY)!!Reporting links!!NOTES
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000

@@ Line 933: / Line 933: @@
 |'''Project L. Independent Reviews and Science Advisors ($153,000)'''
 |Independent review of the work of the GCMRC, the work of GCMRC’s associated scientists in sister agencies, consulting firms, and universities, and the decisions and programs of the AMWG and TWG are critical aspects of the GCDAMP. The primary activity is the convening of Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEP) to review the state-of-the-science in critical areas of science and management and to consider development of formal protocols for monitoring different aspects of the CRe.
 |"If sediment cannot be preserved in the system using available management actions, what is the feasibility (including technical, legal, economic, and policy issues) of sediment augmentation as a means of achieving this goal? (USGS 2007b; IN 8.1)
 Determine what information is necessary and sufficient to make  recommendations at an acceptable level of risk. (USGS 2007b; IN 12.2)
@@ Line 950: / Line 951: @@
 What are the relationships between dam operations and other management actions in their effects on resources addressed by GCDAMP management objectives? (USGS 2007b; RIN 12.9.3)
 What are the most effective methods to maintain or attain the participation of externally-funded investigators? (USGS 2007b; RIN 12.11.1)"
+|
+|

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 |"How do flows impact old high water zone terraces in the CRE (where the majority of archaeological sites occur), and what kinds of important information about the historical ecology and human history of the CRE are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the Holocene sedimentary deposits? (USGS 2007b; SSQ 2.2)
 What is the pre- and post-dam range of grain-size in fine-sediment deposits, by reach? (USGS 2007b; RIN 8.5.3)"
 |Project Element A.6. Control Network and Survey Support ($37,000)
 |An accurate geodetic control network is required to support nearly every aspect of this project as well as other GCMRC monitoring projects. The control network is the set of monumented and documented reference points (benchmarks) that exist along the river corridor and on the rim together with the collection of observations that determine the relative and absolute positions of those points. Those points serve as the basis for referencing all ground- and air-based monitoring observations. The purpose of the control network is to ensure that spatial data acquired on all projects are collected with accurate and repeatable spatial reference. This effort is nearing completion, and most segments of the river corridor now have a sufficient number of control points to support monitoring activities. In 2013 and 2014, field work will be required to complete this task in Glen Canyon (between the dam and Lees Ferry), RM 81 to RM 91, RM 98 to RM 119, RM 144 to RM 166, and RM 225 to 277.
+|
+|

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 What is the relationship between the fine-sediment budget and turbidity? (USGS 2007b; SIN 8.5.2)
 How can the ongoing fine sediment supply be managed to achieve sustainable habitats? (USGS 2007b; SIN 8.5.5)"
-|AMWG
+|
+|

@@ Line 990: / Line 990: @@
 |000
 |TBD
+|
+|
+|
+|
+|

@@ Line 881: / Line 881: @@
 To what extent does aeolian sediment transport counteract gully erosion in Marble and Grand Canyon? Hypothesis: Aeolian sediment substantially limits gully incision of river-corridor sediment deposits in Marble–Grand Canyon such that the modeled extent of gully development will be greater than the actual extent."
 |"Do sandbars deposited by HFEs contribute to preservation of archaeological sites in the river corridor? (II: Mellis et al. 2007)
 Do HFEs contribute to added stability or erosion of archaeological sites located in close proximity to the river? (II: Mellis et al. 2007)
 Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) sites, and if so, how? (USGS 2007b; SSQ 2.1)
 How do flows impact the sedimentary matrix of the higher terrace deposits, and what kinds of important historical/legacy information about the CRE ecosystem is being lost due to ongoing erosion of these older Holocene sedimentary deposits? (USGS 2007b; SSQ 2.2)
@@ Line 899: / Line 897: @@
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000
-|TBD
+|'''Project K. GCMRC Economist and Support ($200,000)'''
+|The program of study that will be undertaken by this individual has not yet been comprehensively described.
-−
+|
+|
+|
@@ Line 909: / Line 920: @@
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000
-|TBD
+|'''Project L. Independent Reviews and Science Advisors ($153,000)'''
+|Independent review of the work of the GCMRC, the work of GCMRC’s associated scientists in sister agencies, consulting firms, and universities, and the decisions and programs of the AMWG and TWG are critical aspects of the GCDAMP. The primary activity is the convening of Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEP) to review the state-of-the-science in critical areas of science and management and to consider development of formal protocols for monitoring different aspects of the CRe.
+|"If sediment cannot be preserved in the system using available management actions, what is the feasibility (including technical, legal, economic, and policy issues) of sediment augmentation as a means of achieving this goal? (USGS 2007b; IN 8.1)
+|
+|
@@ Line 919: / Line 946: @@
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000
-|TBD
+|'''Project M. USGS 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 and some of the travel and training costs for the GCMRC Chief, Deputy Chief, and two program managers. 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.
+|
+|
@@ Line 929: / Line 956: @@
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000
-|TBD
+|'''Project N. Incremental Allocations in Support of Quadrennial Overflights'''
+|Overflights, during which digital aerial photographs and remotely-sensed data are acquired, occur every 4 years as part of the regular monitoring program of he GCDAMP. These data are used by most of the projects described in the BWP. The estimated average cost of each quadrennial overflight is approximately $565,000, and this amount is accrued during a 4-yr period. Thus, the amount listed in the FY 13 and FY 14 budgets represents the required amounts so that overflight data acquisition will occur in 2013 and 2017.
+|
+|
@@ Line 939: / Line 966: @@
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000
-|TBD
+|'''Other GCDAMP topics currently not being addressed in the BWP:'''
+|Angler preference
-−
+|
+|
+|
@@ Line 950: / Line 978: @@
 |000
 |TBD
+|
+|"Can changes in quality of recreational experience be quantified for single event opportunities (e.g., white water rafting, angling, and camping) vs. multi-opportunity experiences (e.g. white water rafting with overnight camping)? (I: Melis et al. 2006)
+How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are the optimal flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? (USGS 2007b; SSQ 3.7)
+|
+|

@@ Line 599: / Line 599: @@
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000
-|TBD
+|'''"Project Element G.1. Laboratory Studies to Assess the Effects of Trout Predation and Competition on
+Humpback Chub ($90,000)"'''
+|Evaluate the effects of water temperature and turbidity on predation vulnerability of juvenile humpback chub. Determine if rainbow and brown trout present more or less of a predation threat to juvenile chub than cannibalism by adult chub. Evaluate the effects that rainbow and brown trout competition have on condition and growth of similar sized humpback chub.
+|"What are the mechanisms by which nonnative trout impact humpback chub?
+|
+|
@@ Line 609: / Line 624: @@
 |- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 |000
-|TBD
+|'''"Project Element G.2. Efficacy and Ecological Impacts of Brown Trout Removal at Bright Angel Creek
+($193,000)"'''
+|Removal in the Colorado River mainstem will occur in a 8.45 km (5.25 mile) reach of Upper Granite Gorge (river miles 85 to 90) in September and in April and will compliment ongoing NPS operation of a weir within Bright Angel Creek (October to March). Mechanical removal efforts in the Bright Angel Reach will be conducted simultaneously with additional native fish hoop net monitoring in the same area to assess whether or not a decrease in abundance of brown trout in the Bright Angel Reach is correlated with increased presence and abundance of native fish. This effort will be conducted in collaboration with the NPS’s ongoing removal efforts (fish weir and electrofishing) in Bright Angel Creek and potential future efforts such as expanded electrofishing, chemical treatments, a rotary screw trap designed for capturing migrating juvenile fish, or other methods yet to be determined. Primary productivity and invertebrate production will be monitored in Bright Angel Creek and the mainstem near its confluence to quantify any changes in availability of food for native fish.
+|"What is the efficacy and feasibility of using electrofishing to control brown trout populations through a coordinated mainstem and tributary removal effort in and around Bright Angel Creek?
+|
+|