Difference between revisions of "FY25-27 Triennial Budget and Workplan Page"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
*Native fish species in the Western Grand Canyon may be approaching abundances at which food limitation becomes more important in regulating population dynamics. | *Native fish species in the Western Grand Canyon may be approaching abundances at which food limitation becomes more important in regulating population dynamics. | ||
− | + | ==Project F: Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology== | |
Project F is tracking ecosystem response to the Bug Flows experiment and other ongoing or potential management actions using community science monitoring of aquatic insects (F.1), monitoring of invertebrate drift (F.1 and F.2), monitoring of invertebrate communities in tributaries and the mainstem Colorado River using environmental-DNA (eDNA; F.3), and quantifying feeding habits, parasite loads, and overall health of native and nonnative fishes using DNA analysis of feces and stable isotope analysis of fin clips (F.4). To reduce costs and facilitate processing of existing samples and analysis and synthesis of existing data, we are proposing to reduce all monitoring and sample collections, and some sample collections will be discontinued entirely (e.g., all bat monitoring will be discontinued, sticky trap and light trap sampling in Glen Canyon will be discontinued, and annual collections of invertebrate drift samples throughout Grand Canyon will be discontinued). | Project F is tracking ecosystem response to the Bug Flows experiment and other ongoing or potential management actions using community science monitoring of aquatic insects (F.1), monitoring of invertebrate drift (F.1 and F.2), monitoring of invertebrate communities in tributaries and the mainstem Colorado River using environmental-DNA (eDNA; F.3), and quantifying feeding habits, parasite loads, and overall health of native and nonnative fishes using DNA analysis of feces and stable isotope analysis of fin clips (F.4). To reduce costs and facilitate processing of existing samples and analysis and synthesis of existing data, we are proposing to reduce all monitoring and sample collections, and some sample collections will be discontinued entirely (e.g., all bat monitoring will be discontinued, sticky trap and light trap sampling in Glen Canyon will be discontinued, and annual collections of invertebrate drift samples throughout Grand Canyon will be discontinued). | ||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
Owing to numerous changes in the food base and fish communities since the last detailed food web studies ~15 years ago, we will assess feeding habits of flannelmouth sucker, humpback chub, rainbow trout, and smallmouth bass. We will focus on non-lethal methods in line with tribal concerns regarding the taking of life. Specifically, we will collect fin clips from fishes to analyze for stable isotopes, and we will collect fecal samples for DNA analysis. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of fin clips provide a non-lethal indication of long-term feeding habits (i.e., recent months) including the trophic position of fishes and the relative importance of algae vs. terrestrial detritus to fish production overall (Layman and others 2012). This long-term information on general feeding habits obtained from stable isotopes complements the more detailed, species-level, snapshot of feeding habits that we will obtain from DNA analysis of fish feces (i.e., what the fish ate that day). This detailed information concerning species presence/absence in diets, when combined with direct eDNA measurements of invertebrate distributions across the Colorado River ecosystem (F.3, above), can be used to estimate source and contribution (tributary vs. mainstem, with tributary identity and mainstem river mile location as cofactors) of the invertebrate food base to fish feeding habits. Because our eDNA methods also detect DNA from terrestrial insects when present, we will be able to quantify the proportion of terrestrial vs. aquatic-origin insect species in fish diets. | Owing to numerous changes in the food base and fish communities since the last detailed food web studies ~15 years ago, we will assess feeding habits of flannelmouth sucker, humpback chub, rainbow trout, and smallmouth bass. We will focus on non-lethal methods in line with tribal concerns regarding the taking of life. Specifically, we will collect fin clips from fishes to analyze for stable isotopes, and we will collect fecal samples for DNA analysis. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of fin clips provide a non-lethal indication of long-term feeding habits (i.e., recent months) including the trophic position of fishes and the relative importance of algae vs. terrestrial detritus to fish production overall (Layman and others 2012). This long-term information on general feeding habits obtained from stable isotopes complements the more detailed, species-level, snapshot of feeding habits that we will obtain from DNA analysis of fish feces (i.e., what the fish ate that day). This detailed information concerning species presence/absence in diets, when combined with direct eDNA measurements of invertebrate distributions across the Colorado River ecosystem (F.3, above), can be used to estimate source and contribution (tributary vs. mainstem, with tributary identity and mainstem river mile location as cofactors) of the invertebrate food base to fish feeding habits. Because our eDNA methods also detect DNA from terrestrial insects when present, we will be able to quantify the proportion of terrestrial vs. aquatic-origin insect species in fish diets. | ||
− | + | ==Project G: Humpback Chub Population Dynamics Throughout the Colorado River Ecosystem== | |
Project G includes project elements to estimate abundances required by the 2016 Biological Opinion (G.1, G.2, G.3, G.4) by monitoring humpback chub in the LCR-spawning population by sampling the LCR and JCM-east reach in the Colorado River (Project Elements G.2, G.3). Additionally, this project includes sampling in western Grand Canyon via continuation of mark-recapture in the JCM-west reach (210.5-214 river miles downstream of Lee Ferry) and extensive spatial sampling via the aggregation trips (Project elements G.5, G.6). Mark-recapture data from these trips will be supplemented with data from autonomous PIT tag antennas (Project Elements G.4, G.9), such as the LCR multiplexer array and submersible antennas, as these technologies have proven effective at detecting larger adults. Data collected from the above-mentioned field efforts will be analyzed to help learn more about humpback chub life history and to guide management efforts (Project Element G.1). | Project G includes project elements to estimate abundances required by the 2016 Biological Opinion (G.1, G.2, G.3, G.4) by monitoring humpback chub in the LCR-spawning population by sampling the LCR and JCM-east reach in the Colorado River (Project Elements G.2, G.3). Additionally, this project includes sampling in western Grand Canyon via continuation of mark-recapture in the JCM-west reach (210.5-214 river miles downstream of Lee Ferry) and extensive spatial sampling via the aggregation trips (Project elements G.5, G.6). Mark-recapture data from these trips will be supplemented with data from autonomous PIT tag antennas (Project Elements G.4, G.9), such as the LCR multiplexer array and submersible antennas, as these technologies have proven effective at detecting larger adults. Data collected from the above-mentioned field efforts will be analyzed to help learn more about humpback chub life history and to guide management efforts (Project Element G.1). | ||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
Continue traditional sampling methodology to monitor Asian fish tapeworm and anchor worm (Lernaea) in humpback chub as specified in the Environmental Commitments Section in the LTEMP ROD (and 2016 Biological Opinion). | Continue traditional sampling methodology to monitor Asian fish tapeworm and anchor worm (Lernaea) in humpback chub as specified in the Environmental Commitments Section in the LTEMP ROD (and 2016 Biological Opinion). | ||
− | ====Project Element I.4. Modeling Population Dynamics and Improving Forecasting Tools for Smallmouth Bass and Other Nonnative Fishes (New Study) | + | ====Project Element I.4. Modeling Population Dynamics and Improving Forecasting Tools for Smallmouth Bass and Other Nonnative Fishes (New Study)==== |
− | *I.4.1: How does turbidity and temperature affect feeding efficiency and survival of early life stages of smallmouth bass? How does adding turbidity as a parameter in the smallmouth bass population growth model affect performance? | + | *I.4.1: How does turbidity and temperature affect feeding efficiency and survival of early life stages of smallmouth bass? How does adding turbidity as a parameter in the smallmouth bass population growth model affect performance? |
*I.4.2: How effective are management actions (LTEMP Flow Experiments, removals) at reducing smallmouth bass population growth, survival, dispersal, and reproduction? | *I.4.2: How effective are management actions (LTEMP Flow Experiments, removals) at reducing smallmouth bass population growth, survival, dispersal, and reproduction? | ||
*I.4.3: What are the long-term drivers of distributional changes in native and nonnative fishes in the CRe? | *I.4.3: What are the long-term drivers of distributional changes in native and nonnative fishes in the CRe? | ||
Line 338: | Line 338: | ||
This project element involves 1) using existing data to estimate the probability of occurrence (occupancy) of all ONF to support the evaluation of trends in LTEMP metrics in development, 2) a synthesis of environmental and mark-recapture data to estimate demographic rates of bluehead and flannelmouth suckers throughout the CRe, and 3) assist NPS and USFWS in estimating growth and survival of razorback sucker released in Grand Canyon as part of a pilot-level augmentation study (2023-2025). Finally, 4) we plan to collaboratively investigate drivers of early life stage dynamics of ONF using larval and small-bodied fish data (2014-present, ASIR, Inc., and BIO-WEST, Inc.) collected in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. | This project element involves 1) using existing data to estimate the probability of occurrence (occupancy) of all ONF to support the evaluation of trends in LTEMP metrics in development, 2) a synthesis of environmental and mark-recapture data to estimate demographic rates of bluehead and flannelmouth suckers throughout the CRe, and 3) assist NPS and USFWS in estimating growth and survival of razorback sucker released in Grand Canyon as part of a pilot-level augmentation study (2023-2025). Finally, 4) we plan to collaboratively investigate drivers of early life stage dynamics of ONF using larval and small-bodied fish data (2014-present, ASIR, Inc., and BIO-WEST, Inc.) collected in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! <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;"> Unfunded Projects </h2> | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element B.3. Control Network and Survey Support (Ongoing Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The purposes of this project element are to establish and maintain the framework for high-accuracy change detection. This project element ensures that geospatial data collected across all projects of the program are accurately referenced, precisely defined, and can be reliably compared with past and future datasets. This project has been included as an element in Project B for the past several work plan cycles because much of the work in expanding the control network was done in cooperation with other Project B elements. Because this expansion of the control network is largely complete and future work will focus on maintenance of the network, documentation, and database management, we are considering migrating this project element to the Geospatial Science Project (Project K) in future work plans. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element B.4. Streamflow, Sediment, and Sandbar Modeling (Ongoing Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The purposes of this project element are to 1) maintain and continue development of the existing sand routing model and sandbar response models, 2) begin development of a new streamflow model for the Colorado River between RM 30 and RM 61, and 3) continue development of a new fine-sediment (silt and clay) routing model. These models will be valuable in identifying and analyzing optimal management actions for sediment resources as part of the LTEMP ten-year review. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Research Question C.1.2. Can Bird Habitat Quality be Reliably Assessed by Combining Plant Traits with Estimates of Plant Species Composition and Cover? Can the Data Collected by the Riparian Plant Monitoring Program be used to Assess Patterns in Riparian-dependent Bird Communities? (unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Maintaining wildlife habitat is explicitly stated in Goal 11, but evaluating wildlife habitat quality requires different vegetation assessments than are needed for determining the diversity and productivity of native plant species. A method for evaluating vegetation as wildlife habitat is needed if this part of the goal is to be assessed. Birds and bird habitat are of interest to Navajo stakeholders (Martin, 2009), is a primary consideration in other southwestern riparian areas (Grand and others, 2024), and has been assessed previously in the CRe (Holmes and others, 2005b). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Research Question C.3.2. What are the Flow Scenarios Necessary to Achieve Specific Vegetation Objectives? (Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This research question will conduct forward-looking modeling efforts to identify the flow conditions that would optimize the vegetation objectives listed in Goal 11. The metrics identified for Goal 11 will be used to frame the outcomes of this modeling (native dominance, richness, cover), similar to those used in Yackulic and others (2024). To date, our modeling efforts in the CRe have focused on the responses of riparian vegetation to flow patterns designed for other resources (Butterfield and others, 2023; Yackulic and others, 2024). While important, this approach does not provide a systematic assessment of how vegetation metrics respond to the full range of flow scenarios that could be implemented. Modeling a wider range of flow scenarios will provide a more comprehensive picture of the tradeoffs and compatibilities among different vegetation metrics and may also identify dam operations that can satisfy multiple objectives. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Research Question C.4.2. How Effective are Individual Plant Species at Altering Hydraulics and Sediment Transport? (Partially Funded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The goal of Project Element C.4.2 is to incorporate physical plant traits into a 2-dimensional hydraulic model developed as part of Project Element B.4 to evaluate the effectiveness of different plant species in causing changes to the channel and floodplain. Plants are effective at causing channel/floodplain change because they affect flow velocities, shear stress, and sediment transport. However, Project Element B.4 is currently unfunded, and the hydraulic model will not be developed as part of the FY 2025–27 TWP. Therefore, as part of C.4.2, we will focus on collecting the relevant plant-trait data needed to determine the effects of plants on hydraulics and sediment transport at the plant and patch scale. These data will later be incorporated into the hydraulic model once it is developed to understand the effects of plants over large spatial scales. Collection of the necessary plant trait data will also benefit other aspects of Project C, particularly C.1.2, and be added to the GCMRC plant trait matrix (Palmquist and others, 2017) for future trait-based analyses of plant communities. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element D.4. Pilot Study to Evaluate Potential to Extract Cultural and Ecological Information from Colorado River Deposits using eDNA, Phytoliths, and Pollen (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In FY 2025-26, we propose to collaborate with the NPS and interested Tribes to undertake a pilot study to examine the types of environmental information that potentially can be extracted from pre-dam sedimentary deposits, with a focus on extracting ancient eDNA for the purpose of characterizing the prehistoric vegetation community and cultural landscape at various points in the past. In addition, we intend to use this pilot study to determine whether eDNA can be used to document the presence of ancient horticulture fields and identify specific cultigens that were grown in the river corridor in the past. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element D.5. Monitoring Petroglyphs and Pictographs with Photogrammetry and Lidar (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Like Project Element D.1, this work uses ground-based lidar but collects measurements at a finer resolution allowing for mm-scale characterization of the panel (Figure 7). Additionally, we use a Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) camera to develop a true photogrammetric surface model (Figure 7) using Agisoft’s Metashape software. There are numerous sites and structural remains for which these monitoring procedures could be applied throughout the Colorado River corridor. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element E.1. Phosphorus Budgeting in the Colorado River (Ongoing Study; Partially Funded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | An unfunded component of this project examines the hypothesis that benthic algae downstream of Lees Ferry sustain elevated GPP during the monsoon season in part through a nutrient acquisition strategy known as “overplus P uptake” (Harold, 1966; e.g., Lapointe and others, 2024), in which algal cells adapted to low-P environments opportunistically uptake extra P during storm events and store it for later use when baseline low-P conditions resume. This information could inform how we represent time lag effects after storms in canyon-wide GPP models. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element E.2. Rates and Composition of Primary Producers in the Colorado River (Modified Study; Partially Funded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The unfunded vegetation mapping project would provide a machine learning model that could be used to classify images and produce maps of submerged aquatic vegetation in Lees Ferry. Such maps could serve as a baseline to answer questions related to the effects of dam operations and reservoir conditions on dominant primary producers that fuel the “green” food web consumed by aquatic invertebrates and fishes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element E.3. Understanding the Energetic Basis of the Food Web in Western Grand Canyon (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This project element aims to understand controls on the base of the food web in Western Grand Canyon. We propose to quantify rates and drivers of decomposition, substrate-scale respiration, and whole-ecosystem primary production and ecosystem respiration in the Western Grand Canyon by deploying a miniDOT (PME) logger for metabolism estimates and, to the extent that outside funding continues, leveraging a new gaging station near Columbine. While turbulent whitewater conditions preclude estimation of respiration rates in most of Grand Canyon, we expect the lower gradient reach approaching Pearce Ferry to support paired estimates of GPP and ecosystem respiration. We also propose targeted decomposition experiments on natural litter and cotton strip assays to understand controls on detritivore vs. microbe-driven decomposition and how changes in temperature, nutrient availability, and litter quality may influence food availability for higher trophic levels. By pairing integrative estimates of ecosystem metabolism with finer-scale decomposition and respiration measurements, our approach will offer a uniquely holistic perspective on the energetic pathways underpinning food webs in Western Grand Canyon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element F.1. Aquatic Invertebrate Monitoring in Marble and Grand Canyons (Modified Study; Partially Funded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | To reduce costs, we propose to discontinue bat monitoring via both community science and at fixed stations throughout Glen and Grand Canyon (Kennedy and others 2024). Community science bat monitoring started in 2017 and is done in conjunction with community science light trapping of aquatic insects. Additionally, we propose to discontinue monitoring of invertebrate drift on annual spring river trips. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element F.2. Aquatic Invertebrate Monitoring in Glen Canyon (Modified Study; Partially Funded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We propose to discontinue monthly sticky trap (Smith and others 2014) and light trap sampling of adult aquatic insects in Glen Canyon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element G.5. Monitoring Humpback Chub Aggregation Relative Abundance and Distribution (Ongoing Study; Partially Funded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Project Element G.5 funds an additional boat that can be used to seine backwaters to monitor juvenile humpback chub and warm-water nonnatives (funded in FY 2025 and FY 2026, not funded in FY 2027). One partial trip (launching at Diamond Creek and taking out at Pearce Ferry) was requested in FY 2026 but remains unfunded. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element G.6. Juvenile Humpback Chub Monitoring – West (Ongoing Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Humpback chub in western Grand Canyon have increased dramatically in the last 5-10 years (Van Haverbeke and others, 2017) and JCM-west monitoring was established to determine how survival, growth, abundance, and recruitment differs for this relatively ‘new’ group compared to the more established group of LCR-spawning humpback chub. Understanding the drivers of this population was a goal identified in the Conservation Measures of the Biological Opinion. Furthermore, the 2016 fisheries PEP specifically recommended additional study in the lower part of the CRe. To address these goals, monitoring of the JCM-west reach (i.e., in Fall Canyon, located 210.5-214.0 river miles downstream of Lees Ferry) commenced in fall 2017 and continued through 2024. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element G.7. Chute Falls Translocations (Ongoing Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Translocation and monitoring of humpback chub upstream of Chute Falls has been in place as a conservation action in Biological Opinions since 2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016, 2002). To date, over 4500 juvenile humpback chub have been translocated upstream of Chute Falls. Models suggest that humpback chub translocated above Chute Falls experience fast growth and high survival and that Chute Falls translocations are a beneficial (but limited) management tool for increasing abundance of humpback chub that can be used instead of nonnative removals in certain situations (Yackulic and others, 2021; Figure 12). In recent years (i.e., 2019, 2022) biologists have documented numerous unmarked subadult humpback chub, indicating that humpback chub may be spawning and recruiting above Chute Falls, potentially increasing the benefit of this management action. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element G.8. Sampling of Springs in the Upper LCR (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Conduct two 5-day trips to the upper LCR in FY 2025 (1 in spring, 1 in fall) to evaluate the spatial distribution of humpback chub and other fishes in the intermittent flow habitats of the upper LCR. Collect eDNA samples to supplement physical capture data. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element H.1. Rainbow Trout Fishery Monitoring in Glen Canyon (Modified Study)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Data collected under this element will be used to calculate metrics on the angling experience for both boat and walk-in anglers, including relative angler use, angler catch per unit effort values, and a rating of the fishery. AGFD angler surveys also provide information for Project J. For the FY 2025-27 work plan we propose to combine staffing resources and electrofishing-based monitoring trips between H.1 and H.2 to enable more precise and sensitive mark-recapture monitoring. In total (including H.1 and H.2), trout monitoring trips will be reduced from 8 to 4, compared to the previous work plan. Despite these changes, CPUE will continue to be calculated from data collected during the remaining 4 mark-recapture-focused trips. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element I.1. System-wide Native Fishes and Nonnative Aquatic Species Monitoring (Ongoing Study)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The objective of this project element is to provide long-term data on the longitudinal distribution and status of the fish assemblage in the mainstem Colorado River from Lees Ferry (RM 0) to Pierce Ferry Rapid (RM 281). Nonnative fish surveillance that was conducted in the Lees Ferry reach during previous AGFD trout monitoring trips will be discontinued during this work plan due to adequate coverage from other agencies sampling the slough at RM -12 and other hot spots, by the dam, and other fixed and random sites throughout the Lees Ferry reach. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====I.3.1. What High-Risk Species in Lake Powell are Moving into the Colorado River Undetected by Traditional Sampling Techniques? (Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the FY 2025-27 TWP, we propose to use automatic sampling technology to collect water samples to screen for emerging threats to the CRe. This will include use of an eDNA Autosampler (Smith Root; https://www.smith-root.com/services/training/environmental-dna-field-sampling-techniques) to automate sample collection in the field, which will allow us to ‘catch’ aquatic nonnative species year-round every few days even when trips are not on the water. The autosampler will be deployed in an area known to be a hot spot for nonnative species (e.g., downstream from dam, in slough) and/or within the draft tubes of the penstocks, and samples will be retrieved every two to four weeks. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====I.3.2. How Comparable are eDNA Methods to Traditional Sampling Gear for Detecting Sources and Dispersal of Nonnative Fishes in the Colorado River? (Partially Funded) ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Seining pools in the upper Little Colorado River drainage (Unfunded): Project Element G.8 monitors spring-fed pools in Piute Canyon in the upper LCR drainage to understand the extent to which humpback chub utilize these pools (and under what hydrologic conditions), as well as identify sources of nonnative species that could be flushed downstream into the LCR during monsoon season. Detection of very high or high-risk nonnative fishes could lead to Tribal management efforts. We plan on collecting three replicate eDNA samples from each paired LCR pool site in FY 2025 in collaboration with seining in Project Element G.8. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====I.3.3. How do the Biophysical Characteristics of Lake Powell Affect the Likelihood of Nonnative Fish Entrainment through Glen Canyon Dam? (Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the FY 2025-27 TWP, we propose to build off this previously funded work by collecting eDNA samples in parcels of water at depth in the Forebay with a Van Dorn sampler, which is used for Lake Powell water quality monitoring and is designed to take samples in lakes and stratified water bodies. We hypothesize that forage fishes and their predators (e.g., smallmouth bass) may descend into deeper depths early in the morning as they follow their food source deeper into the reservoir, potentially leading to higher levels of entrainment at different times of the day. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====I.3.4: What is the Incidence of Parasite Infestation in Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado River and Mainstem Colorado River? Can a Molecular Assay be Developed to Reduce Handling Time and Expand the Scope of Monitoring? (Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We propose to collaborate with Oregon State University (Dave Lytle and Justin Sanders labs) to develop molecular assays for Asian tapeworm and Lernaea, which could eventually replace current detection methods. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element J.3. Tribal Resources Research (Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Focuses on developing more explicit pathways for recognition and meaningful consideration in the GCDAMP of the values and importance of Tribal resources, and the effects of management on these values. Building understanding within the GCDAMP of diverse forms of knowledge that convey plural values linked to ecosystems and resources, and piloting an ecosystem services-based approach to identify and integrate available Tribal benefits knowledge. We consider how the Cultural Benefits Learning Framework (CBLF) developed by Hoelting and others (2023) can intersect with Tribal research frameworks to increase recognition and integration of diverse knowledge forms that effectively convey the importance of Tribal resources. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element L.2. Acquisition of Overflight Remote Sensing Imagery (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | During FY 2026, GCMRC will implement a remote sensing overflight to collect high-resolution digital, multispectral imagery and topography of the CRe between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element L.3. Acquisition of Airborne Lidar in Conjunction with Overflight Remote Sensing Imagery (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | During the overflight proposed in Project Element L.2, GCMRC proposes to also acquire Quality Level 1 (QLI) or higher resolution airborne lidar data of the CRe. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project M: Leadership, Management, and Support==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | An annual contribution ($25,000) to the GCMRC equipment and vehicles working capital fund is currently unfunded. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element N.2. Predictive Modeling and Decision Support for Native Fishes (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We will use the results of demographic modeling in Project Element N.1 to develop predictive models to inform management and decision-making for ONF (e.g., matrix-based models, metapopulation viability model; Runge and others, 2018; Healy and others, 2023). Management decisions may include where and how to focus ONF restoration, augmentation (razorback sucker), or translocation efforts, how to protect native fish populations (e.g., in tributary refuges above barriers), prioritization of uncertain threats including nonnative species, or those related to LTEMP flow actions, among others. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element N.3. Evaluating Dispersal and Sources of Mortality of Razorback Sucker using New Technology (New Study; Unfunded)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We propose to use acoustic telemetry to quantify dispersal from release sites and predation as a source of mortality of age-1 razorback sucker released in the CRe. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Experimental Fund Projects </h2> | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element A.4. HFE Analyses (Ongoing Study, Experimental Fund)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This element funds the collection and processing of streamflow and sediment data before, during, and after HFEs in support of the LTEMP sediment goal. Under this element, crews will be deployed to make discharge measurements and collect suspended-sediment samples at the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Colorado River near Grand Canyon gaging stations and also at either the Colorado River above Little Colorado River or Colorado River above Diamond Creek gaging stations. This work is required to evaluate the effects on sediment of individual HFEs (e.g., Topping and others, 2010, 2019). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element A.5. Real-time Water Temperature in Marble Canyon (New Study; Experimental Fund)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This element funds the collection, processing, and hourly serving of 15-minute water temperature measurements at the downstream end of Marble Canyon at the Colorado River above Little Colorado River near Desert View, AZ, gaging station (RM 61). This would provide direct support of the Cool Mix experiment to disadvantage warmwater nonnative fishes as described in the 2024 LTEMP SEIS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2024). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element B.5.1. Extended-duration HFEs==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The key information needed to evaluate the effects of extended duration HFEs on sediment resources will be: | ||
+ | |||
+ | #Measurements of suspended sand concentration during each entire HFE, | ||
+ | #Measurements of sandbar size before and after the extended duration HFE, and | ||
+ | #Daily observations of sandbar dynamics during the HFE. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Because the extended duration HFEs are limited to the fall accounting period, data collected in the fall sandbar-monitoring trip, which occurs annually in early October, will be used as the pre- HFE sandbar measurement, which saves logistical costs. One additional sandbar-monitoring trip will be required following the extended duration HFE. The focus of the pre- and post-HFE study will be on deposition above the 8,000 ft3/s stage. Therefore, the surveys will be for sandbar topography only and do not require bathymetry. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Additional information will be gained by conducting daily surveys during the extended duration HFE at two locations. Because the sandbars will be submerged, these surveys will require bathymetry. These surveys will allow for comparison between observed sandbar deposition rates and main-channel suspended sand concentrations. Finally, we will compare observed changes in sandbar volume to predictions based on site-specific sandbar modeling (Project Element B.4) to evaluate the predictive capability of the modeling approach. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element B.5.2 and B.5.3. Proactive Spring HFEs==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Evaluation of the effectiveness of the proactive HFEs to address the above science question requires surveys of sandbar topography immediately following the proactive HFE and following the equalization flows. Images from remote cameras already in place would be used to monitor the portions of sandbars exposed above water during the equalization flows (see Project Element B.1). The post-equalization flow survey would be accomplished on the annual sandbar- monitoring trip in early October. The post-HFE survey would require one additional survey trip. If river discharge is less than about 16,000 ft3/s during the survey, this could be accomplished with topography only (Experimental Project B.5.2). | ||
+ | |||
+ | If discharge is higher, bathymetric measurements would be required to enable surveying the entire sandbar above the 8,000 ft3/s stage (Experimental Project B.5.3). Surveying the sandbar down to the 8,000 ft3/s stage is required for the purposes of comparison with other surveys. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element B.5.4. Variation in HFE Downramp Rate==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Addressing these questions will require at least three sets of measurements of sandbar topography at the Project B.1 monitoring sites. The measurements would be collected: 1) immediately following the HFE, 2) approximately 4 months following the HFE, and 3) approximately 10 months following the HFE. Assuming this experiment occurs during a fall HFE, collection of these data would require only two additional sandbar monitoring trips. The third set of data (10 months following the HFE) would be collected as part of the annual Project B.1 sandbar monitoring. The direct measurements of topography would be supplemented with analysis of images from the remote cameras. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element C.5. Experimental Vegetation Treatment Decision Support (Experimental Fund) ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This project element supports GCMRC Principal Investigator participation in regular meetings about site selection, monitoring, and experimental treatment plans. It also includes time for site visits, assistance with data analysis. We will collaborate on GCMRC Project D.3 and continue to facilitate NPS work as needed. Aspects of this support include, but are not limited to, assistance designing management experiments, consultation on plant species and collection locations for out-planting, sharing of data and maps, assistance with pre- and post-treatment data collection, facilitating the use of new restoration treatments and newly available research, site visits, input on the selection of work sites, and data analysis. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element C.6. Plant Physiological Responses to Experimental Flows (Experimental Fund)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Building off the results of this, other previous experiments (Palmquist and others, 2022; Butterfield and Palmquist, 2024b), and Project Elements C.1 and C.2, physiological studies conducted during experimental flows will focus on species expected to be affected by the planned flow experiment. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element C.7. Effects of Plants on Flow Velocities and Sediment Transport During Experimental Flows (Experimental Fund)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We plan to use the experimental fund to directly measure the effects of common plant species on flow velocities and sediment transport during experimental flows. During experimental flows, we will use an acoustic Doppler velocimeter to collect high-resolution 3-dimensional velocity and turbulence data within and adjacent to patches of different plant species to determine the magnitude that different species affect flow velocities. We will collect suspended-sediment samples upstream, within, and downstream of plant patches to determine the effects of plants on sediment transport. We will also try to make measurements in conjunction with experimental vegetation removal areas (Project D.3 and Project 4.D of the FY 2025-27 Reclamation Triennial Work Plan) to evaluate how those removal actions affect flow velocities in those areas. Additionally, excavations will be made following experimental flows to determine the depth and grain size of sediment deposited within and adjacent to each plant patch. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element D.6. Post-HFE Surveys (Experimental Fund)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In each year that an HFE occurs, we will send one technician on a summer trip to do additional post-HFE surveys. The technician will then process those data after returning from the trip, and the data will be added to the monitoring and research results reported by D.1 and D.3. This model for acquiring HFE-specific data that would otherwise not be acquired by Project D was successfully implemented in June 2023 after the spring HFE that year. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element I.5. Evaluating the Efficacy of Flow Experiments in the LTEMP SEIS to Control Smallmouth Bass (New Study; Experimental Fund)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This work will include analyzing data on smallmouth bass abundance/catch, distribution/dispersal, growth, and reproduction. In addition to analyzing multi-agency data to determine the efficacy of LTEMP SEIS Flow Experiments, we propose to use eDNA to evaluate presence and relative abundance of smallmouth bass from the dam to the Little Colorado River confluence prior to smallmouth bass flows. These data can be used as an additional source of data to inform the geographic extent of cooling needed in Marble Canyon resulting from bypass and penstock water released during the flow experiment. Post-flow samples could be used to inform whether the distribution and relative abundance of smallmouth bass has changed following flow implementation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Project Element I.6. Determining Hatch Dates of Larval Smallmouth Bass in Response to LTEMP sEIS Flow Experiments (New Study; Experimental Fund)==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Larval fish will be collected throughout the reproductive season in the Lees Ferry reach in a year in which the LTEMP SEIS Flow Experiment occurs using targeted seining and netting efforts to capture fish <40mm. Cobble bars and shallow habitats will be targeted for seining, particularly in areas adjacent to known hot spots for smallmouth bass as identified by multi-agency sampling efforts (see Project Elements I.4, I.5). Larval fish samples will be preserved in 95% ethanol and sent to the Larval Fish Laboratory at Colorado State University for back calculation of hatch dates and calculation of growth rates using otolith microstructural analysis. This project will only occur in years during which LTEMP SEIS Flow Experiments occur. [How will this be done if the experiment prevents spawning and there are no larval fish to be collected? This should be done regardless of whether the experiment is implemented] | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 353: | Line 529: | ||
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_Budget GCDAMP Budget and Workplan Page] | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_Budget GCDAMP Budget and Workplan Page] | ||
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_BAHG_Page Budget AdHoc Group Page] | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_BAHG_Page Budget AdHoc Group Page] | ||
+ | |||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Documents and Direction </h2> | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | *[[Media:GCMRC_TWP_FY25-27_v4.pdf|Final Draft GCMRC FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Reclamation TWP FY25-27 v4.pdf|Final Draft Reclamation FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Draft GCMRC FY25-27 v.3.pdf|Third Draft GCMRC FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Draft Reclamation TWP FY25-27 v.3.pdf|Third Draft Reclamation FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:GCMRC_TWP_FY25-27_Budget_Comparison.xlsx|GCMRC Budget Comparison]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Reclamation_Budget.pdf|Reclamation Budget Comparison]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Budget_comparison_to_FY25-27.xlsx|Budget comparison to FY25-27]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Proposed_Initial_Paring_Down_of_FY25-27_TWP_Budget_20240423.xlsx|Proposed Initial Paring Down of FY25-27 TWP Budget]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:25-27TWP_unfunded_element_costs.xlsx|FY25-27 TWP unfunded element costs]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Draft_GCMRC_FY25-27_v.2.pdf|Second Draft GCMRC FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Draft_Reclamation_TWP_FY25-27_v.2.pdf|Second Draft Reclamation FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:GCMRC_TWP_FY25-27.docx|First Draft GCMRC FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Reclamation_TWP_FY25-27.docx|First Draft Reclamation FY25-27 TWP ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:TWP_Project_Briefs.pdf|TWP Project Briefs]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:FY25_27_BAHG_Timeline_05112024.pdf|FY25-27 BAHG Timeline]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 385: | Line 582: | ||
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2024-04-11-twg-meeting/20240411-GlenCanyonDamAdaptiveManagementProgramTriennialWorkplan-Reclamation-508-AMWD.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Workplan -Reclamation ] | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2024-04-11-twg-meeting/20240411-GlenCanyonDamAdaptiveManagementProgramTriennialWorkplan-Reclamation-508-AMWD.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Workplan -Reclamation ] | ||
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2024-02-29-amwg-meeting/20240229-BAHGUpdate-508-UCRO.pdf BAHG Update ] | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2024-02-29-amwg-meeting/20240229-BAHGUpdate-508-UCRO.pdf BAHG Update ] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
|- | |- |
Latest revision as of 15:00, 26 August 2024
|
Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2025-2027The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is an advisory process wherein protection, management, and improvement of Colorado River resources downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are considered in planning dam operations. The Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) of 1992 directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to establish and implement long-term monitoring and research programs to ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated “… in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established….”. The 1995 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) recommended creation of a federal advisory committee to advise the Secretary on adaptive management for operations of the dam. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 1995 EIS, which was signed in October 1996, created this federal advisory committee. The charter of the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) that implements the GCDAMP was signed in January 1997. Many stakeholders who are members of the AMWG also participate at a technical level in the Technical Work Group (TWG). The TWG formulates recommendations about research and monitoring for consideration by the AMWG. A new Long Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS was completed in 2016 and an associated ROD was signed on December 15, 2016 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a, b). The LTEMP ROD reaffirms continuation of the GCDAMP, AMWG and TWG and specifies new experimental flow and non-flow actions and compliance requirements for the operations of Glen Canyon Dam until 2037.
|
Long-term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) The LTEMP provides the basis for decisions that identify management actions and experimental options that will provide a framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations over the next 20 years |
LTEMP Science Plan The LTEMP Science Plan describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to DOI, its bureaus, and to the GCDAMP in support of implementation of LTEMP. |
Core Monitoring Plan The GCMRC Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) describes the consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for example, water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources. |
Monitoring and Research Plan The GCMRC Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) specifies (1) core monitoring activities, (2) research and development activities, and (3) long-term experimental activities consistent with the strategies and priorities established in this SSP to be conducted over the next 5 years to address some of the strategic science questions associated with AMWG priority questions. |
Budget and Workplan The GCMRC Triennial Work Plan (TWP) identifies the scope, objectives, and budget for monitoring and research activities planned for a 3-year period. When completed, the triennial work plan will be consistent with the MRP. |
---|
|
|