|
|
| Line 54: |
Line 54: |
| | {|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;"> |
| − | [http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jun24/TWP_rev_14aug01.pdf| Triennial Budget and Work Plan]</h2>
| + | |
| | + | Links</h2> |
| | + | |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Chapter 1. Introduction==
| + | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_BAHG_Page Budget AdHoc Group Page] |
| − | Adaptive Management Work Group Costs <br>
| + | *Back to [[GCDAMP Planning]] |
| − | 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>
| + | ! <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;"> FY18-20 GCMRC Triennial Budget and Workplan </h2> |
| − | 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;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | *[[FY 15-17 GCMRC Triennial Budget and Work Plan]]
| + | |
| − | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_BAHG_Page Budget AdHoc Group Page]
| + | |
| − | *Back to [[GCDAMP Planning]]
| + | |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
| − | ! <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;"> Current Documents and Direction </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;"> [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FY_15-17_GCMRC_Triennial_Budget_and_Work_Plan FY15-17 GCMRC Triennial Budget and Workplan] </h2> |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| Line 995: |
Line 82: |
| | *[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)] | | *[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]] | | *[[Media:GCDAMP Continuity and Strategic Direction memo 2016.pdf| Memo from Jennifer Gimbel on GCDAMP continuity and strategic direction dated July 8, 2016]] |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
| Line 1,003: |
Line 91: |
| | *[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] | | *[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] |
| | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16apr19/documents/Streamlined_Process.pdf Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process] | | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16apr19/documents/Streamlined_Process.pdf Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process] |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
| Line 1,011: |
Line 100: |
| | *[[Media:2004 GCDAMP Goals&PriorityQuestions.docx| 2004 GCDAMP Goals and AMWG Priority Questions]] | | *[[Media:2004 GCDAMP Goals&PriorityQuestions.docx| 2004 GCDAMP Goals and AMWG Priority 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;">Papers and Presentations</h2> | + | |} |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | <!-- |
| | + | |
| | + | --------------------------------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;"> Papers and Presentations</h2> |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''2016'''
| |
| − | *[[Media:GCMRC FY16 Annual Report.pdf| GCMRC FY 2016 Annual Project Report ]]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16oct18/Attach_10b.pdf GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process Updated October 19, 2016]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16oct18/Attach_10a.pdf Triennial Work Plan Budget Process]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16oct18/Gimbel_Memo_16jul08.pdf Gimbel Memo to GCMRC and Reclamation Dated July 8, 2016]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16oct18/Castle_Memo_14may07.pdf Castle Memo to GCMRC and Reclamation Dated May 7, 2014]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16oct18/Biennial_Budget_Process_10may06.pdf GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by AMWG on May 6, 2010]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/16oct18/TWP_Protocol_Paper_Clean16oct06.pdf GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process dated Oct. 6, 2016]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/16aug24/Attach_03a.pdf Fiscal Year 2017 Budget and Workplan, and Overview of Reclamation FY17 Budget and Work Plan]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/16aug24/Attach_03b.pdf GCMRC FY2017 Work Plan and Budget]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/16aug24/Attach_04.pdf Technical Work Group (TWG) Report: Triennial Budget Process Development]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''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]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/15jun11/Attach_01.pdf Bureau of Reclamation Overview of FY15-17 Budget]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15may28/Attach_04a.pdf FY2016 Budget and Work Plan]
| |
| − | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15may28/Attach_04b.pdf Overview of Reclamation FY15-17 Budget]
| |
| − | *[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''' | | '''2014''' |
