|
|
| (125 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| | </table> | | </table> |
| | | | |
| − | [[File:MonopolyMan.jpg|400px]] | + | [[File:FY25-27TWP.png|center|600px| link=FY21-23 Triennial Budget and Workplan ]] |
| | | | |
| | <!-- | | <!-- |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
| | |style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | | |style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| |
| | | | |
| − | The goal of the '''Triennial Workplan and Budget (TWP)''' is to reduce the effort expended on the budget process while improving the effectiveness of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), Technical Work Group (TWG), and AMWG. The GCDAMP will develop a TWP the first year of the process. Then, in the second year the GCDAMP would implement the year-two budget and make relatively minor corrections primarily related to changes in CPI and needs at GCMRC and the Bureau of Reclamation. In the third year the GCDAMP would consider minor changes to the year three budget to allow for changes in projects or potential important new starts not envisioned during the development of the triennial budget. | + | == '''GCDAMP Budget and Work Plan ''' == |
| | + | |
| | + | <br> |
| | + | The goal of the '''Triennial Budget and Workplan (TWP)''' is to reduce the effort expended on the budget process while improving the effectiveness of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), Technical Work Group (TWG), and AMWG. The GCDAMP will develop a TWP the first year of the process. Then, in the second year the GCDAMP would implement the year-two budget and make relatively minor corrections primarily related to changes in CPI and needs at GCMRC and the Bureau of Reclamation. In the third year the GCDAMP would consider minor changes to the year three budget to allow for changes in projects or potential important new starts not envisioned during the development of the triennial budget. |
| | | | |
| | The major components of the TWP would include: | | The major components of the TWP would include: |
| Line 39: |
Line 42: |
| | ! 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;" | [[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;" | [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20171006 LTEMP Science Plan] <br> The LTEMP Science Plan describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to DOI, its bureaus, and to the GCDAMP in support of implementation of LTEMP. |
| | | | |
| | ! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[Core Monitoring Plan]] <br> The GCMRC Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) describes the consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for example, water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources. | | ! style="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[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. |
| Line 45: |
Line 48: |
| | ! 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;" | [[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|Triennial Work Plan (TWP)]] <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="width=20%; background:#cedff2;" | [[GCDAMP Budget|Budget and Work Plan]] <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 TWP will be consistent with the MRP. |
| | | | |
| | |} | | |} |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | {|style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px; background:none;" | | {|style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px; background:none;" |
| | |class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"| | | |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;" | | {|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;"> | + | ! <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;"> Triennial Budget and Workplans </h2> |
| − | [http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf| Triennial Budget and Work Plan]</h2>
| + | |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Chapter 1. Introduction== | + | |- |
| − | Adaptive Management Work Group Costs <br>
| + | ! <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;"> [[FY25-27 Triennial Budget and Workplan Page]] </h2> |
| − | AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement <br>
| + | |- |
| − | AMWG Reclamation Travel <br>
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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>
| + | ! <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;"> FY24 Budget and Workplan </h2> |
| − | Science Advisor Contract <br>
| + | |- |
| − | Experimental Fund <br>
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | Installation of Acoustic Flow Meters in Glen Canyon Dam Bypass Tubes <br>
| + | |
| − | Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund <br>
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | Cultural Resources Work Plan <br>
| + | *[[Media:Memo from Wayne - continuation of GCDAMP workplan wgp.pdf| Memo from Wayne - continuation of GCDAMP workplan in FY24.pdf ]] |
| − | 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>
| + | ! <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;"> [[FY21-23 Triennial Budget and Workplan]] Page </h2> |
| − | Purpose <br>
| + | |- |
| − | Administrative Guidance that Informs the FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan <br>
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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==
| + | *[[Media:GCMRC TWP2021-23 December2 2020 ApprovedBySecretary.pdf| Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2021-2023 ]] |
| | + | *[[Media:20240125-AnnualReportingMeeting-ProceedingsFiscalYear2023-508-UCRO.pdf | GCMRC FY23 Annual Project Report]] |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-01-26-twg-meeting/20230126-AnnualReportingMeeting-ProceedingsFY2022AnnualReportingMeeting-508-UCRO.pdf GCMRC FY22 Annual Project Report] |
| | + | *[http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/e/ec/GCMRC_ANNUAL_REPORT_FY2021-FINAL_508.pdf GCMRC FY21 Annual Project Report] |
| | | | |
| − | ==Project 2. Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem== | + | |- |
| | + | ! <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;"> [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FY18-20_GCMRC_Triennial_Budget_and_Workplan FY18-20 Triennial Budget and Workplan] Page </h2> |
| | + | |- |
| | + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | This project makes the basic measurements that link dam operations and reservoir releases
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-09-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2018-2020 ] |
| − | to the physical, biological, and sociocultural resources of the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe)
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-01-13-twg-meeting/20220113-SummaryReportPeerReview2020AnnualProjectReport-508-UCRO.pdf Summary Report of the Peer Review for the 2020 Annual Project Report] |
| − | downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. This project conducts the monitoring of stage, discharge,
| + | *[[Media:GCMRC FY20 ANNUAL REPORT-Final 12.18.2020.pdf | GCMRC FY20 Annual Project Report]] |
| − | water quality (water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), suspended
| + | *[[Media:FY2019 GCMRC Annual Report-12-19-2019-FINAL.pdf | GCMRC FY19 Annual Project Report]] |
| − | sediment, and bed sediment. Measurements are made at gaging stations located in Glen Canyon
| + | *[[Media:FY2018 GCMRC Annual Report-FINAL 12-13-2018.pdf | GCMRC FY18 Annual Project Report]] |
| − | 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== | + | |- |
| | + | ! <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;"> [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FY_15-17_GCMRC_Triennial_Budget_and_Work_Plan FY15-17 Triennial Budget and Workplan] Page </h2> |
| | + | |- |
| | + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | This project consists of a set of integrated studies that (a) track the effects of individual High-
| + | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2015-2017] |
| − | Flow Experiments (HFEs, or “controlled floods”) on sandbars and within-channel sediment
| + | *[[Media:GCMRC Annual Report 2017.pdf| GCMRC FY 2017 Annual Project Report ]] |
| − | storage, (b) monitor the cumulative effect of successive HFEs and intervening operations, and (c)
| + | *[[Media:GCMRC FY16 Annual Report.pdf| GCMRC FY 2016 Annual Project Report ]] |
| − | advance general understanding of sediment transport and eddy sandbar dynamics. While the first
| + | *[[Media:FY15 GCMRC Annual Report.pdf| GCMRC FY 2015 Annual Project Report ]] |
| − | 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
| + | ! <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;"> [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FY12-14_GCMRC_Biannual_Budget_and_Workplan FY13-14 Biannual Budget and Workplan] Page </h2> |
| − | 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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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
| + | *[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] |
| − | sandbars over many years, including a period that contains several controlled floods, in order to
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/Attach_09.pdf GCMRC Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Project Report to the GCDAMP] |
| − | 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.
| + | ! <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;"> [[FY11-12 GCMRC Biannual Budget and Workplan]] Page </h2> |
| − | 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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2011-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_10g.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Biennial Budget and Work Plan - Fiscal Years 2011-12] |
| − | methods for making sandbar surveys rapidly and at low cost; (2) investigating bedload sand
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10mar15/Attach_05a.pdf Appendix E, FY2011-12 Spreadsheet] |
| − | transport; (3) developing a method to estimate the thickness of submerged sand deposits, (4)
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10mar15/Attach_05b.pdf GCMRC Proposed Budget PPT] |
| − | developing a method to map submerged aquatic vegetation, and (5) developing of a new largescale
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10mar15/Attach_05c.pdf John Hamill Memo Including Project Summary Table] |
| − | 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 == | + | |- |
| | + | ! <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;"> [[FY10 GCMRC Budget and Workplan]] Page </h2> |
| | + | |- |
| | + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | The rate and magnitude of wind transport of sand from active channel sandbars to higher
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-03-16-twg-meeting/Attach_08b.pdf BAHG FY2010 Preliminary Budget Recommendation to the TWG dated March 6, 2009] |
| − | elevation valley margins potentially affects the stability of archaeological sites and the
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/10aug24/Attach_05.pdf FY2010 Mid-year Expenditures: 1) FY2010 Bureau of Reclamation Mid-year Expenditures and FY2010 GCMRC Mid-year Expenditures] |
| − | characteristics of other cultural and natural resources. The degree to which valley margin areas
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10mar15/Attach_04b.pdf Process and Approximate Schedule for FY10-11 Recovery Program Work Planning] |
| − | 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
| + | ! <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;"> [[FY09 GCMRC Budget and Workplan]] Page </h2> |
| − | 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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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==
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/10feb03/Attach_19.pdf AIF: FY2009 Final Expenditures and USBR Report] |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/10feb03/Attach_20.pdf FY2009 Expenditures for USGS] |
| | | | |
| − | 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
| + | ! <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;"> [[FY08 GCMRC Budget and Workplan]] Page </h2> |
| − | 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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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
| + | --------------------------------ADDITIONAL-------------------------------> |
| − | concern influencing decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions.
| + | |class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"| |
| − | To inform these decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of
| + | {| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;" |
| − | fish populations, particularly the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), be available to
| + | ! <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> |
| − | 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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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
| + | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_BAHG_Page Budget AdHoc Group Page] |
| − | last two decades. Fish were sampled by hoop and trammel nets at aggregations first described by
| + | *[[GCDAMP Planning]] Page |
| − | Valdez and Ryel (1995). Most captures of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River have
| + | *[https://gcdamp.com/index.php/Portal:GCDAMP_Knowlege_Assessments Annual Reporting and Knowledge Assessment Page] |
| − | been downstream of the LCR (Persons and others, in preparation). Continuing to sample for
| + | *[[GCDAMP and NPS River Trips and Field Activities]] |
| − | 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,
| + | ! <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> |
| − | *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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | *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
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2016-10-18-twg-meeting/Attach_09b.pdf TWP Protocol Paper (10-6-2016)] |
| − | approximately the LCR and Lake Mead) has been sampled using standardized methods since
| + | *[[Media:2020.02.05 - AMWG Approved TWP protocol - Table 1 for 2021-2023 - 508.pdf| TWP Protocol Table 1 update (3-6-2019)]] |
| − | 2000 as described in Project 6.4, the System Wide Electrofishing Project and since 2010 as
| + | *[[Media:AMP Funding Considerations 2017-01-26.pdf| Presentation given by Rod Smith on AMP funding considerations to the AMWG 2017-01-26]] |
| − | 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
| + | ! <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;">Science Questions and Information Needs</h2> |
| − | 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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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
| + | *[[Media:2004 GCDAMP Goals&PriorityQuestions.docx| 2004 GCDAMP Goals and AMWG Priority Questions]] |
| − | 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
| + | ! <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 Presentation</h2> |
| − | 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
| + | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − | 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
| + | '''2023''' |
| − | monitoring data following the methods described in Makinster and others, (2010) and will
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-GlenCanyonDamAdaptiveManagementProgramBudgetPriorities-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget Priorities] |
| − | evaluate the efficacy of a mark-recapture approach downstream of the LCR confluence. To
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-08-17-amwg-meeting/20230817-TWGBudgetMotion-508-UCRO.pdf TWG Budget Motion] |
| − | eliminate duplicative efforts, we propose that sampling be conducted in areas not sampled by the
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-08-17-amwg-meeting/20230817-GCDAMPBudgetWorkPlanReclamation-508-UCRO.pdf GCDAMP Budget and Work Plan: Reclamation] |
| − | Rainbow Trout Natal Origins and the Juvenile Chub Monitoring projects (Project Elements 7.2
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-08-17-amwg-meeting/20230817-GCMRCFY24GCDAMPBudgetOverview-508-UCRO.pdf GCMRC FY24 GCDAMP Budget Overview] |
| − | and 9.2). We will also increase sampling effort downstream of Diamond Creek to monitor for
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-08-17-amwg-meeting/20230817-FY2024BudgetWorkPlanRecommentationInformation-508-UCRO.pdf FY 2024 Budget and Work Plan Recommendation Information] |
| − | 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
| + | '''2022''' |
| − | Colorado River fishes including humpback chub (Yard and others, 2011). Determining the
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/pdfs/20200205-AMWGApprovedTriennialBudgetWorkPlan2021-2023-508.pdf GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process ] |
| − | source or sources of this species in Grand Canyon will help scientists and managers better target
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2022-02-10-amwg-meeting/20220210-ReclamationBudgetProcess-508-UCRO.pdf Reclamation Budget Process ] |
| − | 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
| + | '''2016''' |
| − | monitors rainbow trout egg deposition and population early life history dynamics, particularly
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2016-10-18-twg-meeting/Attach_09b.pdf GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process Updated October 19, 2016] |
| − | age-0 survival in Glen Canyon. This project in particular, provides managers with an initial
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2016-10-18-twg-meeting/Attach_09a.pdf Triennial Work Plan Budget Process] |
| − | indication of the annual cohort strength of rainbow trout recruiting into the population. Findings
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_04.pdf Technical Work Group (TWG) Report: Triennial Budget Process Development] |
| − | 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==
| + | '''2011''' |
| − | | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/11jan20/Attach_05a.pdf Biennial Budget Process Paper] |
| − | During 2013–14 we developed models that integrate data collected in the Little Colorado
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/11jan20/Attach_05b.pdf Budget Concerns Developed by TWG Chair] |
| − | 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==
| + | '''2010''' |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/10may06CC/Attach_02b.pdf GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Paper Approved by the AMWG on May 6, 2010] |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10mar15/Attach_04a.pdf TWG Biennial Process Paper] |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10mar15/Attach_04c.pdf GCDAMP Biennial Process Paper Approved by the AMWG on May 6, 2010] |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10jan21/Attach_03a.pdf GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Paper] |
| | | | |
| − | This project encompasses two ongoing management actions and two new projects, all
| + | '''2009''' |
| − | designed to increase survival of juvenile native fishes in Grand Canyon. In addition, we propose
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09sep29/Attach_13.pdf AIF: Biennial Budget Process Development with Biennial Budget Process, Draft Outline for TWG Review] |
| − | to convene a protocol evaluation panel comprised of external experts to conduct a review of the
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/09aug12/Attach_08f.pdf Memo from Dennis Kuby dated 6/21/09, Subj: Proposed Biennial Budget and Work Plan to Support the GCDAMP in Fiscal Years FY2010-22] |
| − | fisheries research, monitoring, and management actions conducted in support of the Glen
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/09aug12/Attach_08j.pdf Budget Motion and Proposed Amendments] |
| − | Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). In FY15–17 we will continue
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09jun22/Attach_07b.pdf GCMRC Response to Budget Motions from the AMWG Meeting held April 29-30, 2009] |
| − | ongoing mechanical removal of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09jun22/Attach_11.pdf Biennial Budget Process Discussion Paper] |
| − | trutta) using electrofishing near the confluence of Bright Angel creek, in support of Grand
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/09apr29/Attach_08a.pdf Budget Discussion Procedures] |
| − | 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 ==
| + | |- |
| − | | + | ! <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;"> Funding the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program </h2> |
| − | ==Project 10. Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater fishery end? - Integrating Fish and Channel Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Project 11. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis of Riparian Vegetation, Landform Change and Aquatic-Terrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==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==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Project 13. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Project 14. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Services and Support ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Project 15. Administration==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==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;">Documents and Links</h2> | + | |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf '''Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2015-2017]'''
| + | The GCDAMP activities that are eligible for funding from power revenues are those actions related to dam operations or the mitigation of dam operations within the CRE. These will be funded in compliance with Section 204 of Public Law (PL) 106-377. Appropriated funds or other sources of funding may also be used for GCDAMP activities as specified in Section 1808 of the GCPA and Section 204 of PL 106-377. [https://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/LTEMP_ROD.pdf] |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16apr19/documents/TWP_Protocol_Paper.pdf GCDAMP Triennial Budget Process]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16apr19/documents/Timeline_Table.pdf Triennial Work Plan Process Timeline]
| + | [[Media:PLAW-106publ377 (Sec204-AMP cap).pdf| PUBLIC LAW 106–377—APPENDIX B 114 STAT. 1441A–68-69: "The Cap Language" ]]<br> |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16apr19/documents/Castle_Memo.pdf Memo from Anne Castle to Jack Schmidt (USGS) and Glen Knowles (USBR) Dated May 7, 2014, Subject: GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan]
| + | SEC. 204. <br> |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16apr19/documents/Streamlined_Process.pdf Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process]
| + | '''(a) IN GENERAL.''' For fiscal year 2001 and each |
| − | *Back to [[GCDAMP Planning]]
| + | fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior shall continue |
| | + | funding, from power revenues, the activities of the Glen Canyon |
| | + | Dam Adaptive Management Program as authorized by section 1807 |
| | + | of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4672), |
| | + | at not more than $7,850,000 (October 2000 price level), adjusted |
| | + | in subsequent years to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index |
| | + | for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics |
| | + | of the Department of Labor.<br> |
| | + | '''(b) VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS.''' Nothing in this section precludes |
| | + | the use of voluntary financial contributions (except power |
| | + | revenues) to the Adaptive Management Program that may be |
| | + | authorized by law.<br> |
| | + | '''(c) ACTIVITIES TO BE FUNDED.''' The activities to be funded |
| | + | as provided under subsection (a) include activities required to meet |
| | + | the requirements of section 1802(a) and subsections (a) and (b) |
| | + | of section 1805 of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (106 |
| | + | Stat. 4672), including the requirements of the Biological Opinion |
| | + | on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam and activities required |
| | + | by the Programmatic Agreement on Cultural and Historic Properties, |
| | + | to the extent that the requirements and activities are consistent |
| | + | with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (106 Stat. |
| | + | 4672).<br> |
| | + | '''(d) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.''' To the extent that funding under |
| | + | subsection (a) is insufficient to pay the costs of the monitoring |
| | + | and research and other activities of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive |
| | + | Management Program, the Secretary of the Interior may use funding |
| | + | from other sources, including funds appropriated for that purpose. |
| | + | All such appropriated funds shall be nonreimbursable and |
| | + | nonreturnable.<br> |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
| − | ! <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;">Science Questions and Information Needs</h2> | + | ! <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;"> Experimental Fund </h2> |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | *[[Media:2004 GCDAMP Goals&PriorityQuestions.docx| 2004 GCDAMP Goals and AMWG Priority Questions]]
| + | In 2003, the GCDAMP established a fund to pay for experimental research projects so that they can be conducted without financially impacting other aspects of the science program. The current balance of the experimental fund at the end of the FY2007 is anticipated to be approximately $900,000. An additional $500,000 will be set aside by the GCMRC annually in an account at Reclamation to fund the BHBF tests and other research related to experimental efforts. Deposits to the experimental account will cease when the balance reaches $2.5 million.[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Monitoring_and_Research_Plan Monitoring and Research Plan, page 8] |
| | + | |
| | + | If the funds allocated to the Experimental Management Fund are not needed in |
| | + | a given year, at the end of the year, they will be transferred to the Native Fish |
| | + | Conservation Contingency Fund (Reclamation project C.6); some year-end |
| | + | experimental management funds may also be allocated to the Contingency |
| | + | Fund for NHPA Section 106 Compliance (Reclamation project D.10). [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-09-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_04e.pdf] |
| | + | |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/09aug12/Attach_08h.pdf GCDAMP Status of Experimental Funds FY2008-12] |
| | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09jun22/Attach_07e.pdf GCDAMP Status of Experimental Funds - FY2008-12] |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
| − | ! <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> | + | ! <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;"> Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund </h2> |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | '''2015'''
| + | “The goal of this budget item is to ensure that funds are |
| − | *[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGTU9xOFhSNmVGZVk/view Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget]
| + | available for native fish conservation actions or nonnative |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/15jun11/Attach_01.pdf Bureau of Reclamation Overview of FY15-17 Budget]
| + | fish control the event this conservation action is needed for |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15may28/Attach_04a.pdf FY2016 Budget and Work Plan]
| + | endangered humpback chub…”[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-09-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_04e.pdf] |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15may28/Attach_04b.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget]
| + | *Projected balance at end of FY 17: ~$1,400,000 [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-09-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_04e.pdf] |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15may28/index.html GCMRC Budget]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/15apr21/Attach_05a.pdf Overview of Reclamation Budget for FY2016]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15feb25/Attach_09a.pdf FY15-17 Budget, and Overview of Reclamation FY15-17]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15feb25/index.html GCMRC Budget Update]'''
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/15apr21/Attach_05b.pdf GCMRC Budget for FY2016 ]'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''2014'''
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14oct28/Attach_05a.pdf GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by the AMWG on 5/6/10]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/14aug27/Attach_06a.pdf AIF: Proposed FY2015-17 Budget and Work Plan]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/14aug27/Attach_06c.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget Considerations with proposed Cultural Resources Work Plan]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/14aug27/Attach_06d.pdf Final Draft GCMRC Work Plan and Budget]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/14aug27/Attach_06e.pdf USGS Facilities in Flagstaff ] | + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/14aug27/Attach_06f.pdf Final FY2015-17 Budget and Work Plan (approved by the AMWG on August 28, 2014) ]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2015-2017]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/Attach_05b.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget Considerations]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/Attach_05c.pdf Development of the FY15-17 GCMRC Work Plan and Budget]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/Attach_05a.pdf AIF and FY15-17 Triennial Budget and Work Plan]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/Attach_07.pdf Combined PPTs on GCMRC Proposed Projects]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/Attach_08.pdf Comments from AGFD on FY15-17 Budget and Work Plan and GCMRC Response to AGFD]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf FY15-17 Budget and Work Plan revised August 1, 2014]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_PPT_14aug04_jcs.pdf Draft Minutes from TWG WebEx/CC held on August 4, 2014 and GCMRC Budget Presentation]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''2013'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''2012'''
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_08a.pdf '''Draft FY2013-14 Biennial Budget and Work Plan]'''
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_08d.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY13-14 Budget]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_08e.pdf Science Advisor Review of FY13-14 Budget]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_08b.pdf DOI Response Memo Dated June 15, 2012, and BAHG Updates]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_08c.pdf E-mail Dated June 15, 2012, from Shane Capron, Subj: FY2013-14 Final Budget Preparation Document]
| + | |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_08i.pdf Final Budget Results and Motions]'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''2011'''
| + | |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
| − | ! <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> | + | ! <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;"> New USGS Flagstaff Science Building and Overhead Projection </h2> |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | *Experimental fund: Monitoring and Research Plan page 8: In 2003, the GCDAMP established a fund to pay for experimental research projects so that they can be conducted without financially impacting other aspects of the science program. The current balance of the experimental fund at the end of the FY2007 is anticipated to be approximately $900,000. An additional $500,000 will be set aside by the GCMRC annually in an account at Reclamation to fund the BHBF tests and other research related to experimental efforts.1 Deposits to the experimental account will cease when the balance reaches $2.5 million. | + | *Occupancy agreement between USGS, City of Flagstaff, and GSA signed in April 2019 |
| − | | + | *Occupancy start of FY2021 at earliest, overhead may increase some during planning and construction |
| | + | *FY2020 overhead on GCDAMP funds: Current projection ~16%, pass-through rate = 3.0% |
| | + | *Overhead on GCDAMP funds to ~26% upon occupancy [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2019-05-22-amwg-meeting/20190522-FiscalYear2020ProposedBudget-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf] |
| | | | |
| | |} | | |} |
