Difference between revisions of "FY18-20 GCMRC Triennial Budget and Workplan"

Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2018–2020

• Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) Costs
• Technical Work Group (TWG) Costs
• Program Administration, ESA Compliance, and Management Actions
• NHPA Compliance and Cultural Resources Program Management

Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Triennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2018–2020

• Administrative History and Guidance That Informs This Work Plan
• 2011 Draft General Core Monitoring Plan
• 2012 AMWG Desired Future Conditions
• 2016 LTEMP ROD
• 2017 LTEMP Science Plan

Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the Colorado River Ecosystem

The primary linkage between Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) operations and the characteristics of the physical, biological, and cultural resources of the CRe downstream from GCD is through the stage, discharge, water quality, and sediment transport of the Colorado River. This project makes and interprets the basic measurements of these parameters at locations throughout the CRe. The data collected by this project are used to implement the HFE Protocol (i.e., trigger and design HFE hydrographs), to evaluate the reach-scale sand mass-balance response to the HFE Protocol (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011; Grams and others, 2015), and to evaluate the downstream effects of releases conducted under the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a, b). The data collected by this project are also required by the other physical, ecological, and sociocultural projects funded by the GCDAMP. Most of the project funds support basic data collection at USGS gaging stations, with only a small amount of project funds supporting interpretation of basic data. The funds requested under this proposal cover only ~70% of the costs required to operate and interpret data at the network of USGS gaging stations used by this project; other funding for this network is provided to the USGS Arizona Water Science Center from funds appropriated by Congress for the USGS, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (AZDEQ). This project is designed to provide measurements of stage (i.e., water elevation), discharge (i.e., streamflow), water quality, and suspended sediment at sufficiently high temporal resolutions (~15-minute) to resolve changes in these parameters and to allow accurate determination of suspended-sediment loads for use in sediment budgeting. The proposed monitoring under this project will be very similar to that conducted over the last 5-10 years.

The 3 elements of this project are as follows:

• Stream gaging: This element partially funds the collection, serving, and interpretation of continuous 15-minute measurements of stage and discharge on the main-stem Colorado River at USGS streamflow gaging stations located at river miles (RM) 0, 30, 61, 87, 166, and 225, and at gaging stations on the major tributaries and in a representative subset of the smaller, formerly ungaged tributaries (Water Holes Canyon, Badger Creek, Tanner Wash, House Rock Wash, North Canyon, Shinumo Wash, and Bright Angel Creek).

• Water quality: This element funds the collection, serving, and interpretation of continuous 15-minute measurements of water temperature, specific conductance (a measure of salinity), turbidity, and dissolved oxygen at the above-mentioned six mainstem Colorado River gaging stations, as well as continuous measurements of water temperature at additional stations on the Colorado River and in the major tributaries. In addition, this element provides a small amount of funding toward the logistics required to collect samples for laboratory water-chemistry analyses (including nutrients) at gaging stations on the Colorado River.

• Sediment transport and budgeting: This element funds the collection, serving, and interpretation of continuous 15-minute measurements and also episodic measurements of suspended sediment and bed sediment at the above-mentioned gaging stations on the Colorado River and its tributaries. The continuous suspended-sediment measurements at the six mainstem Colorado River gaging stations, and the episodic suspended-sediment measurements in the tributaries are used in the construction of mass-balance sand budgets. These budgets inform scientists and managers on the effects of dam operations on the sand mass balance in the CRe between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead divided into 6 reaches (Figure 1).

Increases in the sand mass balance in a reach indicate an increase in the amount of sand in that reach and therefore an increase in the amount of sand available for sandbar deposition during HFEs, whereas decreases in the sand mass balance in a reach indicate a net loss of sand from that reach. All measurements made by this project are made using standard USGS and other peer-reviewed techniques. All of these measurements can be plotted and/or downloaded at: https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ or https://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/discharge_qw_sediment/. Plots of continuous parameters can be made in time-series or duration-curve formats. In addition, the user-interactive mass-balance sand budgets for the six CRe reaches are available at this website (Sibley and others, 2015). In addition to the collection and serving of the basic streamflow, water-quality, and sedimenttransport data, time is spent in this project interpreting the data and reporting on the results and interpretations in peer-reviewed articles in the areas of hydrology, water quality, and sediment transport. The interpretive papers published by this project are designed to address key questions relevant to river management, especially to management in the GCDAMP. To date, this ongoing project has published over 80 peer-reviewed journal articles, books, proceedings articles, and USGS reports, a full listing of which are available at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/sbsc/science/fluvial-river-sediment-dynamics?qtscience_center_objects=1- qt-science_center_objects]. This website also provides urls to download these publications.

Project B. Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research

The purposes of this project are to a) track the effects of individual HFEs on sandbars, b) monitor the cumulative effect of successive HFEs and intervening operations on sandbars and sand conservation, and c) investigate the interactions between dam operations, sand transport, and eddy sandbar dynamics.

The sand deposits on the bed and banks of the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons are directly affected by the operations of GCD. Depending on the relative magnitudes of dam releases and tributary sediment inputs, sand either accumulates or is eroded from the bed of the river. When evaluated over long river reaches, sand is evacuated from the river bed during sustained periods of high dam-releases (Topping and others, 2000; Grams and others, 2015) and sand accumulates during periods of average dam-releases and substantial tributary sediment inputs (Grams, 2013; Grams and others, 2013). Sandbars along the river banks above average base flow (about 8,000 ft3/s) also change in response to dam operations, but in a different pattern, because they are not always inundated and because they comprise a small fraction of the sand in the system (Hazel and others, 2006; Grams and others, 2013). These deposits aggrade significantly during HFEs that exceed powerplant capacity (Schmidt and Grams, 2011) and, to a lesser extent, during powerplant capacity flows (Hazel and others, 2006). These deposits typically erode during normal powerplant operations between HFEs (Hazel and others, 2010). One of the stated goals in the ROD for the recently completed LTEMP (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016) is to "increase and retain fine sediment volume, area, and distribution...for ecological, cultural, and recreational purposes." Expectations of improved sandbar building and conservation of sediment were among the criteria used in the selection of the preferred alternative. One of the central components of the selected alternative is the continued implementation of HFEs for building sandbars. The LTEMP extends the program initiated with the Environmental Assessment for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam (HFE Protocol) which asked the question, "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? Additional, condition dependent experiments are included in the preferred alternative, with objectives related to sandbar building and sediment conservation. Project B includes elements that are designed to evaluate whether the sediment-related goals of the LTEMP are met, provide the information that is needed to proceed with or abort LTEMP experimental activities, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented experiments.

Thus, one of the most important objectives of Project B 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. The monitoring program described here continues the program implemented in previous work plans 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. These annual measurements and daily photographs are included in Project Element B.1. This project element also includes work to more efficiently conduct quantitative analyses of the remote camera images. Because these longterm monitoring sites represent only a small proportion of the total number of sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons, Project Element B.2 includes periodic measurements of nearly all sandbars within individual 50 to 130 km sediment budget reaches (see Project A for description of sediment budget reaches).

Another critical piece of information that is needed to evaluate the outcome of the HFE Protocol and the LTEMP is the change in total sand storage in long river reaches. 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 deposition is the sand that is in storage on the channel bed, which is the sum of the sand contributed by the most recent tributary inputs, any sand that may have accumulated since GCD 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 the quantity of sand most recently contributed by the Paria River, thereby preventing depletion of pre-dam era sand. Some of the sand mobilized by HFEs is deposited in eddies where it builds eddy sandbars. Some of the sand is eventually transported downstream to Lake Mead. The most efficient floods for the purposes of sandbar building are those that maximize 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. Sediment delivered by the LCR also contributes to sand storage downstream from the LCR confluence. However, this tributary has contributed only a small fraction of the quantity of sand delivered by the Paria River (Griffiths and Topping, 2015) and is not included in the HFE protocol.

Measured trends in sand storage along the channel bed combined with trends in exposed sandbars will provide the necessary context on which to base future decisions about dam operations and other potential management options. If sand storage is maintained or increased, we expect the response to future HFEs to be similar to or better than that observed following recent HFEs. In contrast, depletions of fine sediment in the active channel are potentially irreversible if sand supply from tributaries is consistently less than downstream transport. This situation would threaten the long-term ability to maintain eddy sandbars. These long-term trends are measured in Project Element B.2, which includes one “channel mapping” campaign to map changes in sand storage in both lower Marble Canyon (RM 30-61) and eastern Grand Canyon (RM 61-87) in 2019. Because these sediment-budget reaches have been mapped previously and because mapping efficiency has increased, we are able to map longer river reaches in a single river trip than previously. These data will be used to provide long-term (8 to 10 year) assessments of sandbar and sand storage change for these reaches and a robust evaluation of 7 years of implementation of the HFE Protocol. Project Element B.3 includes work to improve the control network in support of this and other work plan projects, with focus on the segment between RM 87 and RM 166, which has never been mapped. The control work is needed to prepare for mapping this segment in the next (FY2021-23) work plan.

This project also includes one element that provides contingency data collection for HFE experiments. Project Element B.4 describes studies that will be conducted to monitor and evaluate the condition-dependent experiments that affect sandbars and sediment resources. This work plan also includes description of two research components that, because of budget constraints, were not funded. Project Element B.5 describes a modeling project to produce flow models that predict the inundation extent and flow velocities for dam operations and HFEs in Marble Canyon and improve capabilities for predicting sandbar response to dam operations. The modeling project element also includes description of proposed laboratory experiments to address the same suite of questions as the condition-dependent experimental HFEs are designed to test. Project Element B.6 is a research project that proposes to investigate river channel adjustment and redistribution of reservoir delta sediment on the Colorado River within the CRe between Diamond Creek and the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park.

Project C. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research

This project seeks to monitor riparian vegetation response to dam operations in order to determine if the LTEMP Resource Goals for riparian vegetation are being met (Elements 1 and 2), use the data created by riparian vegetation monitoring in Elements 1 and 2 to address gaps related to predicting the responses of vegetation to dam operations (Element 3), and support the implementation of experimental vegetation treatments directed by the LTEMP ROD (Element 4). Monitoring the state of riparian vegetation along the mainstem is ongoing and critical for understanding the effects of dam operations on riparian vegetation and associated resources. Long-term monitoring assesses if riparian vegetation is being maintained “in various stages of maturity, such that they are diverse, healthy, productive, self-sustaining, and ecologically appropriate” and assesses if dam operations under the new ROD, daily and experimental flows, have the expected result of “more native plant community cover, higher native plant diversity, a higher ratio of native to nonnative plants, less arrowweed, and more wetland,” (VanderKooi and others, 2017). This project utilizes annual field measurements (Element 1) and digital imagery (Element 2) for integrated monitoring of changes in vegetation at river segment (for example Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, etc.) and system-wide scales. Included in monitoring are a 5-year assessment of vegetation change (Element 1) and an analysis of a new system-wide remote sensing vegetation classification for, providing an assessment of tamarisk beetle defoliation from 2009-2013 and sand/vegetation turnover dynamism (Element 2). Each of these products provides an assessment of the status of plant communities identified as being of interest or concern by stakeholders. Elements 1 and 2 are complementary methods of vegetation monitoring that determine status and trends at different spatial and temporal scales (Palmquist and others, in press). These two elements will be integrated through an assessment of relations between fine-scale, ground-based monitoring with the coarser-scale, spatially continuous remotely-sensed data. This assessment will allow us to identify the appropriate frequency of the ground-based monitoring (annual, biennial, or otherwise) and to integrate ecological processes occurring across different spatial and temporal scales.

Element 3 proposes to analyze vegetation data from Elements 1 and 2, existing historic vegetation data, and flow data to examine the influence of dam operations and other environmental variables on riparian vegetation distribution and address other knowledge gaps regarding vegetation response. A recent knowledge assessment that was conducted to identify the current understanding of vegetation response to dam operations elucidated uncertainties regarding how daily flows and experimental flows impact vegetation complexity, functional diversity, and species composition. We plan to address some of these uncertainties by creating predictive models of vegetation responses to LTEMP flow scenarios based on the vegetation monitoring and remote-sensing products outlined above (and described below). These predicted outcomes will be generated across multiple spatial scales in order to better understand how experimental flows are impacting the integrity of riparian vegetation. The results of this work will help predict vegetation response to dam operations outlined in the LTEMP, help assess if the LTEMP management goals for vegetation are advancing, and inform the parameters in which vegetation management will be most successful.

As stated in the LTEMP ROD, NPS and tribal partners will coordinate with GCMRC to conduct targeted vegetation removal and plantings, including “control of nonnative plant species and revegetation with native species (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016).” Project element 4 will help address information needs and management design required for the successful implementation of this required vegetation management. The NPS, Tribes, and other stakeholders will also seek to preserve sand resources, camp sites, and archaeological sites through vegetation removals, restore native riparian plants by planting native species, and control exotic plants. The long-term success of planting efforts will depend on matching genetically suitable plant material to specific sites varying in substrate stability and existing vegetation. Monitoring of post-removal vegetation trajectories could identify how successional processes interact with dam operations, determine methods for the long-term preservation of these sites, and prioritize needs for future interventions on a site-by-site basis. These sites will encompass only a small portion of the riparian corridor and will have different goals and locations from the monitoring outlined in Elements 1 and 2, so this work cannot replace ongoing monitoring efforts throughout the CRe.

Project D. Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation Management for Archaeological Sites

Glen Canyon Dam has reduced downstream sediment supply to the Colorado River by about 95% in the reach upstream of the Little Colorado River confluence and by about 85% below the confluence (Topping and others, 2000). Operation of the dam for hydropower generation has additionally altered the flow regime of the river in Grand Canyon, largely eliminating pre-dam low flows (i.e., below 5,000 ft3/s) that historically exposed large areas of bare sand (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a; Kasprak and others, 2017). At the same time, the combination of elevated low flows coupled with the elimination of large, regularly-occurring spring floods in excess of 70,000 ft3/s has led to widespread riparian vegetation encroachment along the river, further reducing the extent of bare sand (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a, Sankey and others, 2015).

The changes in the flow regime, the reductions in river sediment supply and bare sand, and the proliferation of riparian vegetation have affected the condition and physical integrity of archaeological sites and resulted in erosion of the upland landscape surface by reducing the transfer (termed “connectivity”) of sediment from the active river channel (e.g., sandbars) to terraces and other river sediment deposits in the adjoining landscape (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016a; Draut, 2012; East and others, 2016). Many archaeological sites and other evidence of past human activity are now subject to accelerated degradation due to reductions in sediment connectivity under current dam operations and riparian vegetation expansion tied to regulated flow regimes (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a; East and others, 2016).

The LTEMP EIS predicts that conditions for achieving the goal for cultural resources, termed “preservation in place”, will be enhanced as a result of implementing the selected alternative. HFEs are one component of the selected alternative that will be used to resupply sediment to sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons, which in conjunction with targeted vegetation removal, is expected to resupply more sediment via wind transport to archaeological sites, depending on site-specific riparian vegetation and geomorphic conditions (Sankey and others, 2017). At the same time, HFEs can also directly erode some river sediment deposits containing cultural resources, particularly large terraces in the Glen Canyon reach (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016a).

This project quantifies the geomorphic effects of ongoing and experimental dam operations, as well as the geomorphic effects of riparian vegetation expansion and management, focusing on effects to the supply of sediment to cultural sites and terraces. The ongoing and experimental dam operations and vegetation management of interest are those that will be undertaken under the LTEMP ROD (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) during the next 20 years. The data and analyses from this project will allow the GCDAMP to objectively evaluate whether and how these non-flow and flow actions affect cultural resources, vegetation, and sediment dynamics, and how they ultimately affect the long term preservation of cultural resources and other culturally-valued and ecologically important landscape elements located within the river corridor downstream of GCD.

Project E. Nutrients and Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding Patterns, Establishing Links and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain Future

Ecosystem temperature and nutrient dynamics can influence both species composition and metabolic rates across many different types of ecosystems (Allen and others, 2005; Brown and others, 2004; Elser and others, 2003; Elser and others, 1996; Yvon-Durocher and others, 2012). Given the importance of nutrients and temperature as drivers of the aquatic ecosystem, it is important to understand their spatio-temporal patterns both because they may be altered by management actions considered in the LTEMP, and because they may provide essential context for interpreting responses to flow experiments. Given the potential importance of nutrients and temperature in driving CRe dynamics, we propose monitoring, research and modeling to: 1) identify processes that drive spatial and temporal variation in nutrients and temperature within the CRe, and 2) establish quantitative and mechanistic links among these ecosystem drivers, primary production, and higher trophic levels. Parallel work in Lake Powell that aims to identify the controls on nutrient concentrations in the GCD outflow is planned with external funding from Bureau of Reclamation (see Appendix 1).

Both temperature and nutrients change in response to various processes. A dense network of stream gaging stations in Grand Canyon provides information on temperature at fine temporal resolutions (Project A) and a temperature model exists to predict downriver temperature (Wright and others, 2008). This model was used to predict responses of downriver native fish populations and warm water non-native fish species to management alternatives in the LTEMP. Although the Wright and others (2008) temperature model was a valuable tool for EIS modeling efforts, it has important limitations. For example, Wright and others (2008) clearly acknowledge that their model overestimates temperatures in downstream reaches during fall low flow months by as much as 2 °C, however, this assumption does not appear to have been acknowledged in LTEMP modeling of downstream temperatures. We are currently modifying Wright’s model and propose to finish this work in FY2018. These modifications are expected to improve downriver predictions.

In contrast to our detailed understanding of temperature, we lack even a basic understanding of gross patterns in nutrient concentrations and their variation over time and along the river. SRP, the most bioavailable phosphorus, is likely to be especially important given the high N:P in the CRe, but our understanding of patterns in soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) availability is especially lacking. While continuous nutrient monitoring at Lees Ferry shows a strong correspondence between nutrient availability in the reservoir outflow and in the Lees Ferry reach (Vernieu, 2009), there are very few measurements of nutrients downstream of the Paria River inflow, with no measurements of SRP routinely made. While the dam releases contribute substantially more discharge than all tributary inputs combined, tributaries like the Paria River and LCR are the major sources of sediment and labile organic matter inputs to the Colorado River and can drive riverine suspended sediment dynamics independent of total river discharge (Topping and others, 2007; Ulseth, 2012). In the Paria River, total phosphorus concentrations are 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than in the mainstem Colorado (Lawson, 2007; Deemer unpublished data). While total phosphorus and SRP are both relatively low during baseflow in the LCR (Deemer, unpublished data; Moody and Muehlbauer, unpublished data), we expect that storm events may flush significant amounts of P into the Colorado before this P has time to be sequestered via abiotic reactions (as is highly likely to be occuring during baseflow). More generally, nutrient loads are likely to vary, at least in part, with suspended sediment loads such that storms may be important to overall budgets in the Paria River as well.

Indirect evidence suggests that reservoir inputs may dominate nutrient concentrations in the upper parts of the CRe, but other factors may become more important downriver. For example, as nutrient concentrations in Lake Powell declined during 2014, Colorado River invertebrate and fish populations between GCD and Lees Ferry and near the LCR confluence declined dramatically. However, in more downriver portions of the CRe, the catch of humpback chub, especially juvenile life stages, was higher in 2014 than in prior years. This suggests either that nutrient limitation is currently not a controlling factor in the lower half of the CRe (see hypotheses H5, H6, and H8 in Project G), or that there are unaccounted sources of nutrients in the lower CRe. These unaccounted sources of nutrients in the lower CRe could consist of tributary inputs, release of geologically bound P under different environmental conditions, or elevated mineralization with higher temperature and/or organic matter inputs (see hypothesis H7 in Project G).

To address these critical management uncertainties, we propose a multi-pronged approach that aims to better understand processes affecting temperature and nutrient availability in the CRe, and to further investigate links between these drivers and Colorado River food webs. We have used the available literature and data to generate a suite of 11 hypotheses which are outlined below. While there are many other hypotheses one could generate to describe patterns in nutrients and temperature and their effects on higher trophic levels, we have done our best to select what we believe are the most probable, management-relevant, and feasible-to-test hypotheses with the intention that we can build on this information in future work plans.

Project F. Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology

The primary focus of the food base group over the next three years is continuation of long-term monitoring that is needed to evaluate progress toward resource goals identified in the LTEMP. Specifically, we will continue monitoring Colorado River invertebrate drift in Glen and Marble Canyons, which now represent datasets spanning 10 and 6 years, respectively. We will also continue the citizen science light trapping of emergent aquatic insects throughout Marble and Grand Canyons, as well as sticky and light trap monitoring of these insects in Glen Canyon, now in their 6th and 4th years, respectively. All of these long-term monitoring projects provide important baseline information that will be used to determine how the aquatic food base responds to LTEMP flow experiments such as macroinvertebrate production flows. Aquatic insect emergence is a fundamental natural process in rivers, and thus these monitoring data will directly inform progress towards the LTEMP goal for Natural Processes. These food base monitoring data will also provide essential context in support of other LTEMP goals including Humpback Chub, the Rainbow Trout Fishery, Other Native Fish, Nonnative Invasive Species, and Recreational Experience.

We will also evaluate ecosystem responses to macroinvertebrate production flows and other LTEMP flow experiments by initiating drift monitoring at new sites in the Colorado River throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons during annual food base river trips in the spring and late summer. Most of these new monitoring sites will be adjacent to tributaries, and at the peaks and troughs of midge abundance identified in citizen science emergence monitoring data (e.g., Lees Ferry, Nankoweep, Bright Angel, Tapeats, etc.).

In support of the LTEMP goal for Humpback Chub, we will characterize the quantity of the prey base in the Colorado River at the LCR confluence and in western Grand Canyon (see Project G). Drift and emergence monitoring will be used to determine the quantity of prey available at these locations. These data on the quantity of prey will be integrated using bioenergetics models, which explicitly account for the effect that water temperature and food availability have on fish physiology.

Research into terrestrial-aquatic linkages will be carried out by our group in support of LTEMP goals for natural processes and tribal resources. The main thrust of this research is a new collaboration with tribal resource trips to monitor bat and bird activity in the CRe. This effort will evaluate the extent to which bat and bird abundance is correlated with the 3-fold variation in midge abundance in Kennedy and others’ Bioscience paper (2016). As part of these terrestrial aquatic linkage studies, we will also continue to support the PhD research of Arizona State University graduate student Christina Lupoli that describes the relative importance of aquatic vs. terrestrial prey to birds, bats, lizards, and rodents (note that ASU covers half of Lupoli’s tuition and stipend through a fellowship). This research will identify the extent to which aquatic insect emergence affects the broader CRe, and whether changes in aquatic insect abundance resulting from macroinvertebrate production flows have ecological effects that propagate out of the Colorado River itself.

We will also conduct new research into brown trout feeding habits, prey selection, and bioenergetics in Glen Canyon to determine whether brown trout population increases in this reach are related to recent deterioration of the prey base. This topic was identified as an important research need in the 2017 Food Base Knowledge Assessment.

Project G. Humpback Chub Population Dynamics throughout the Colorado River Ecosystem

Monitoring and research activities associated with humpback chub are mostly mandated by BiOp associated with the LTEMP EIS, which provides limited flexibility for additional work. Within these constraints, proposed activities also seek to respond to recommendations made by the August 2016 Fisheries PEP including: 1) focusing inferences on open models and vital rates (movement, growth, and survival), rather than solely abundance, 2) improving the efficiency of humpback chub research, 3) considering additional, hypothesis-driven research into recent increases in the lower half of the CRe, and 4) critically examining the effectiveness of translocation programs. Lastly, to the extent possible, analyses and research are responsive to recent trends and hypothesized drivers.

Since the fall of 2014, adult humpback chub in the Colorado River near the LCR have had reduced condition factor (the ratio of the observed weight to the predicted weight based on length), lower spawning rates relative to earlier years, and juvenile chub abundances have declined precipitously (Yackulic, 2017). While there is good evidence that turbidity, temperature, and negative interspecific interactions drive vital rates, we hypothesize that these recent declines may have been driven by a fourth factor – a depressed aquatic food base. This hypothesis will be one focus of modeling efforts related to humpback chub population dynamics during FY2018-20. In contrast to the deteriorating conditions near the LCR, there is evidence of increased catch of multiple size classes of humpback chub in the Colorado River in western Grand Canyon in recent years. The drivers of these changes are not well understood in part due to the fact that sampling in western Grand Canyon does not allow for estimation of fish condition, vital rates, or abundance.

Humpback chub monitoring and research includes both work within the LCR and in neighboring reaches of the Colorado River, where densities of humpback chub are greatest, and in less dense aggregations both upstream and downstream of the LCR confluence. Humpback chub monitoring near the LCR involves sampling both in the tributary itself and at a site in the Colorado River downstream from the LCR confluence known as the JCM site. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-led sampling in the LCR will maintain the same effort (two fall trips and two spring trips) and will continue to yield abundance estimates from closed models. Effort associated with the JCM project will be decreased and we will modify our protocol (increasing the size of the study reach, moving hoopnets more frequently, integrating remote antennas and focusing sampling during months when capture probability should be highest) with the goal of maintaining acceptable precision on vital rates and adult humpback abundances that are derived from open multistate models that integrate data from the LCR and JCM monitoring. We are testing less expensive technology to track humpback chub movement into the LCR and will continue to work to integrate these data into population models; however, less staff time will be available for population modeling in this work plan and goals for progress in population modeling have been modified accordingly. Aggregation sampling in the Colorado River outside of the LCR will occur as in the past. To explore the feasibility of hypothesis-driven research outside of the LCR, we will apply JCM sampling at a site downriver of the LCR to determine whether JCM sampling can lead to estimates of capture probability, abundance and vital rights (and ultimately strong inferences on drivers) at sites that likely have lower densities, but higher capture probabilities. Lastly, translocations about Chute Falls will continue as in the past, and a feasibility study will be conducted to determine whether translocations into the upper reaches of Havasu Creek are possible.

Project H. Salmonid Research and Monitoring

Protection of the endangered humpback chub near the LCR is one of the highest priorities of the GCDAMP, but a concurrent priority of the GCDAMP is to maintain a high quality rainbow trout sport fishery upstream of Lees Ferry in Glen Canyon. As such, rainbow trout were an important component in the development of LTEMP (USDOI, 2016b) on GCD operations, and thus were a major consideration in the flow decisions in the selected alternative in the ROD (USDOI, 2016c). Experimental flows proposed in the LTEMP were designed to limit rainbow trout recruitment and dispersal out of Lees Ferry with a goal of maintaining the balance between the sport fishery and the humpback chub population downstream. However, ecosystems are dynamic and there has been a large increase in brown trout recruitment upstream of Lees Ferry over the past few years (Yard, unpublished data). Given this new development, it is unclear whether the expansion of brown trout will disrupt the balance between rainbow trout and endangered native fishes downstream, and further, to what degree flow manipulations can be used to manage both species concurrently.

A major component of the proposed study elements herein focus on how experimental flows will influence recruitment, growth, survival, and dispersal of rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons. However, management of the rainbow trout fishery cannot occur in a vacuum given the recent increase in brown trout in Glen Canyon. Small numbers of brown trout have been present in the canyon since the dam was built but have increased following a time period associated with frequent fall-timed HFEs. It is currently unclear whether this relationship is causal or coincidental, but research is needed to examine if the proposed flow manipulations help or hinder the expansion of brown trout. Brown trout are superior competitors in other tailwater systems, are typically not stocked past their initial introduction (Dibble, unpublished data), and are known to be voracious predators of small-bodied native fishes (Yard and others, 2011). It is therefore prudent and necessary to not only evaluate the effect of experimental flows on rainbow trout, but also to examine how brown trout populations may respond to such flow manipulations. This proposal utilizes a combination of field, modeling, and laboratory techniques to evaluate the response of trout to experimental flows including TMFs, HFEs, equalization flows, and macroinvertebrate production flows. Project Element H.1 capitalizes on knowledge gained from the natal origins of rainbow trout (NO) and rainbow trout early life stage studies (RTELSS) projects funded in GCDAMP’s FY2013-14 and FY2015-17 work plans. This project proposes a consolidated study design focused on juvenile and adult trout captured during quarterly mark-recapture trips in combination with pre- and post- flow treatments to evaluate early life-history responses to TMFs. This project aims to gain a better understanding of the effects of experimental flows on rainbow trout and brown trout recruitment, growth, survival, dispersal, and movement from GCD to the LCR confluence. Project Element H.2 develops a rainbow trout recruitment and outmigration model that predicts the response of rainbow trout to alternative flows and physical conditions in the CRe. This model can be used to evaluate the ability of alternative monitoring designs to detect rainbow trout responses to LTEMP flow alternatives. Project Element H.3 uses information on vital rates contained within young-of-year (YOY) rainbow trout and brown trout otoliths to improve recruitment models, identify when brown trout are most vulnerable to flow manipulation, and assess the physiological response of brown trout to different types, durations, and timing of experimental flows, which is data that can be used to manage this nonnative species. Finally, Project Element H.4 extends the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) long-term monitoring of rainbow trout in Lees Ferry and launches a new citizen science program to gather data on angler catch quality in combination with ongoing creel surveys in a cost-effective way. Collectively, these four projects aim to resolve critical uncertainties about the response of rainbow trout and brown trout to experimental flows proposed in the LTEMP that are now the basis for its associated ROD (USDOI, 2016c).

Project I. Warm-Water Native and Non-Native Fish Research and Monitoring

Two specific resource goals outlined in the LTEMP EIS and associated BiOp for operation of GCD are maintenance of self-sustaining native fish populations within the Colorado River and minimizing the presence and expansion of aquatic invasive species (USDI 2016). Declines in native fish populations throughout the southwest are commonly linked to adverse interactions with invasive warm-water fish (Marsh and Pacey, 2005, Clarkson and others 2005). In the Colorado River, and especially the upper Colorado River, warm-water predatory fish are implicated in lack of recruitment and population declines in native fish (Martinez and others 2014). For this reason, regulation and control of invasive fish is an important action identified in all recovery goals for Colorado River endangered fish including humpback chub (USFWS 2002, under revision). This project aims to provide scientific information that facilitates effective warm-water fish management in the following ways:

1) By conducting system-wide fish monitoring to track trends in native fish and by refining existing monitoring efforts and employing new monitoring tools to improve early detection capability of invasive warm-water fish.

2) By assessing and quantifying the relative risks posed by warm-water nonnative fish to humpback chub and other native fish utilizing a combination of field and laboratory research.

Long-term monitoring allows the ability to detect trends and test hypotheses in regard to temporal variation in fish populations, but its strength also lies in the ability to interpret and detect unexpected trends or surprises (Lindenmayer and others, 2010, Dodds and others, 2012, Melis and others, 2015). When designed properly, a long-term monitoring program is a powerful tool for quantifying the status and trends of key resources, understanding system dynamics in response to stressors, and investigating the efficacy of alternative management actions. Without long-term monitoring, science-based decisions for fisheries management are often not possible (Walters 2001).

Preventing new invasions is the least expensive and most effective way to control invasive species when compared to the cost of control projects after invasions occur (Leung and others, 2002). Therefore, we seek to improve detection of potentially problematic warm-water invasive fish within the CRe in Grand Canyon by continuing existing monitoring efforts and testing new Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection tools. We propose to continue monitoring efforts at Lees Ferry by adding an additional night of sampling on both the summer and fall trips to include 12 sites where warm-water species are likely to aggregate and spawn. This will maximize our ability to detect range expansions of existing warm-water invasive species and those that may pass through the dam.

Currently, AGFD conducts system-wide fish monitoring using electrofishing, angling and hoop netting from Lees Ferry (RM 0) to Pearce Ferry (RM 281). Other fish monitoring efforts focus on humpback chub (project G) and other native fishes small-bodied fish monitoring conducted by the NPS downstream of Bright Angel Creek, funded by the Bureau of Reclamation. These projects also provide important detection data related to invasive warm-water fish. As the elevation of Lake Mead has decreased due to drought, the western segment of the river has reemerged, creating the need to extend sampling efforts for native fish as well as invasive species detection for an additional 15 miles to the Lake Mead interface. In this work plan AGFD will conduct two spring system-wide fish monitoring trips per year and a single fish monitoring trip per year in the fall to monitor fish populations downstream of Diamond Creek.

New tools such as eDNA will be tested to validate the presence or absence of key invasive species, determine the spatial extent of invasions within the mainstem Colorado River and estimate the relative biomass of aquatic invaders. Environmental DNA is DNA that is collected from the environment in which an organism lives, rather than directly from animals themselves. In aquatic environments, animals including fish, shed cellular material into the water via reproduction, saliva, urine, feces, etc. This DNA may persist in the environment for several weeks, and can be collected in a water sample which can then be analyzed to determine if the target species of interest are present (Carim and others, 2016).

Ficetola and others (2008) first demonstrated that detection of vertebrates using eDNA in water samples was possible and interest in using this tool to improve detection sensitivity and cost efficiency over aquatic field surveys has grown rapidly and been shown to be effective in many aquatic systems (Goldberg and others 2011). Environmental DNA can have higher sensitivity and lower cost than traditional sampling methods especially when attempting to detect very rare organisms. Water samples for eDNA analysis are relatively easy to collect in conjunction with exiting monitoring trips and data can be paired with standard electrofishing and hoop netting data to compare the sensitivity of each approach. Investigating the utility of new eDNA detection tools is a critical first step in preventing the establishment and spread of warm-water invasive fish in CRe because it may allow early detection of new invasive species so that management actions can be targeted to prevent their spread.

Management and removal of invasive aquatic species can be difficult once a species becomes established because of the large scale of the problem and the few effective tools that are available (Dawson and Kolar 2013). This creates the need to understand which species pose the greatest threats. Assessing the risks posed by existing or new warm-water invasive fish provides managers with the scientific information needed to make decisions about what management activities are warranted. Hilwig and Andersen (2011), compiled a literature review of the potential risks posed by individual species, but those risks need to be validated and quantified based on existing environmental conditions, species abundances, and expected future conditions in the LCR and CRe. Although extensive research to evaluate rainbow trout and brown trout predation on juvenile humpback chub under various environmental conditions was conducted in the previous work plan, other warm water invasive species in the LCR may also be detrimental to humpback chub and other native fish. To that end, risks posed by other warm-water invasive fish such as channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and bullhead catfish (Amerius melas) will be quantified using diet analysis and modeling. Laboratory studies will be conducted to quantify predation risk from common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and small bodied fish such as fathead minnow and plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus) (on humpback chub eggs and larvae). These studies will determine if warm-water invasive fish present more or less of a predation threat to juvenile chub than predation by trout. This information gives context from which to evaluate potential management actions such as trout removal and will ensure that any future aquatic invasive species removal efforts are focused only on those species that pose the highest threat to humpback chub populations.

In addition to evaluating the risks posed by invasive fish species we will also evaluate the risks posed by infestation of Asian fish tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) in humpback chub. Asian fish tapeworm is an invasive species that infests warm-water cyprinid fish. Asian fish tapeworm monitoring has occurred annually within the LCR and additional monitoring will be conducted in this work plan on Asian fish tapeworm in humpback chub inhabiting the mainstem Colorado River as identified in the 2016 BiOp. Asian fish tapeworm has been identified as one of six potential threats to the continued existence of endangered humpback chub (USFWS 2002). It is potentially fatal to new host species (Hoffman and Schubert 1984). Asian fish tapeworm was first documented in the LCR in Grand Canyon in 1990 (Minckley 1996) and was hypothesized to be a cause of long-term declines in condition of adult humpback chub from the LCR (Meretsky and others 2000). Monitoring Asian fish tapeworm infestation in humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River will provide a baseline context and relative risk assessment with which to evaluate the potential impacts of this invasive parasite on humpback chub populations.

Project J. Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem

Project J is designed to identify preferences for, and economic values of, downstream resources and evaluate how these metrics are influenced by GCD operations, including proposed experiments in the GCD LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016a). The research will also integrate economic information from the project with data and predictive models from longterm and ongoing physical and biological monitoring and research studies led by the GCMRC to develop integrated assessment models (multidisciplinary models [e.g., biology and hydropower] that incorporate social and economic considerations), improving the ability of the GCDAMP resource managers and stakeholders to evaluate and prioritize management actions, monitoring and research.

This project involves two related socioeconomic research elements. These elements build on research in the FY2015-17 TWP (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey, 2014) and include: a) implementation of a tribal member population survey to assess preference for and value of downstream resources (Element 1); and b) development and integration of decision support models, using economic metrics, to evaluate and prioritize monitoring of, and research on, resources downstream of GCD, including the anticipated success (or lack thereof) of proposed experiments in the LTEMP EIS (Element 2). As detailed in the Proposed Work section of this project, Element 2 would prioritize modeling of resources with the highest priority for protection, resource that are impacted by operational decisions at GCD, and resources that have sufficient predictive modeling frameworks developed to assess future resource states. Priority for research is based on resources for which protection is required under law (e.g., Endangered Species Act), exhibit relatively large economic value, and garner a significant portion of the GCMRC annual budget.

Element 1:

The proposed quantitative population-level tribal research is designed to provide an efficient and timely approach to assessing tribal values, perspectives and knowledge of CRe resources. The tribal member population surveys would apply a set of standard methods extensively used in resource economics studies for valuing ecosystem services. The research would inform on tribal perspectives (e.g., perspectives on management actions) and preferences for trade-offs (e.g., tradeoffs between energy generation and other downstream resources) related to operation of GCD. This information is critical when developing quantitative adaptive management models that assess the most cost-effective management actions and value of reducing scientific uncertainty (e.g., Element 2). This project element would build on the qualitative research in Project 13.2 in the FY2015-17 TWP. The qualitative research in FY2017 is being accomplished through workshops with tribes involved in the GCDAMP, coordinated with recent work, including a NPS nonuse survey focused on national and regional populations (Duffield and others, 2016), as well as direct use recreation studies (Bair and others, 2016; Neher and others, revise and resubmit; Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). This work is scheduled to be completed prior to implementation of Element 1.

Element 2:

This project element will build on the framework of a bioeconomic model developed to integrate rainbow trout and humpback chub population models and cost-effectiveness analysis, used to identify efficient management actions to meet adult humpback chub abundance goals (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). Current research includes the exploration of which uncertainties in humpback chub population parameters have the greatest implications for management decisions (i.e., quantitative adaptive management model) and the explicit trade-offs (efficacy and cost) between TMFs and rainbow trout removals at the LCR. Element 2 will explore which drivers, linkages and uncertainties in experimental flows (e.g., TMFs) have the greatest implications for rainbow trout management decisions, and address the impacts of longterm trends in recruitment of rainbow trout and humpback chub of rainbow trout and humpback chub on monitoring and research priorities. Integrating hydropower analysis into the modeling of TMFs will be a primary focus of Element 2. Hydropower analysis is an incremental step in the development of applied decision and scenario analysis research at GCMRC. Adding hydropower analysis into the applied decision and scenario analysis research is timely provided the proposed LTEMP EIS experiments, including TMFs.

Element 1 addresses the LTEMP ROD objective to respect the “interests and perspectives of American Indian Tribes” and Element 2 addresses the LTEMP ROD objective to “determine the appropriate experimental framework that allows for a range of programs and actions, including ongoing and necessary research, monitoring, studies, and management actions in keeping with the adaptive management process” (U.S Department of Interior, 2016b). Element 2 also considers hydropower and attempts to “maintain or increase Glen Canyon Dam electric energy generation, load following capability, and ramp rate capability, and minimize emissions and costs to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with improvement and long-term stability of downstream resources” (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b). Element 2’s focus on adaptive management modeling is consistent with the GCDAMP fisheries review panel’s recommendation that the program, “adopt [a] decision theoretic approach to adaptively manage the rainbow trout fishery and humpback chub population” (Casper and others, 2016). A decision theoretic approach to adaptive management is when a, “predictive model or set of models are created that represent alternative ideas of how the system works” and those priors are evaluated through predicted or actual future resource states (Casper and others, 2016). This approach, would allow the GCDAMP to “optimize” monitoring and research by identifying the relative efficiency of learning opportunities. The proposed project elements therefore address the LTEMP EIS resource goals related to humpback chub, tribal concerns, hydropower, and rainbow trout.

Project K. Geospatial Science and Technology

The geospatial and information technology industries continue to change and expand at a rapid pace. Much of this growth is driven by advances in technology—from improved sensors for monitoring the Earth to increased digital data storage capacity to newer computer systems designed for processing large data sets more efficiently to the greater emphasis of the “Internet of Things” where the reliance of web-based technologies have revolutionized our world. The purpose of this project is to continue to advance GCMRC’s ability to leverage many of these new technologies for the benefit of the Center, the science projects described within this work plan, and the larger GCDAMP that they serve. Work performed within this project makes it possible to share important information about trends in resources of the CRe to the GCDAMP through web based, interactive tools and mapping products, allowing the GCDAMP to make informed, time sensitive decisions on experimental and management actions under the 2016 LTEMP and the associated ROD (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016).

GCMRC continues to collect, store, process, analyze, and serve an ever-growing amount of digital data. Much of the data that now exists in the Center has a geospatial component to it. The importance of being able to effectively manage these data has never been greater as technological advances have increased both the demand and the expectancy of more open data availability. This project will continue to build and maintain systems that will handle these data needs, as well as provide high-level support to other science projects in the form of data processing, data management and documentation, geospatial analysis, and access to the Center’s data holdings. Maintaining and improving upon GCMRC’s capacity for providing this level of access will be crucial to effective decision-making during the implementation of the LTEMP.

Project L. Remote Sensing Overflight in Support of Long-term Monitoring and LTEMP

This project seeks to collect system-wide, high-resolution multispectral imagery and a Digital Surface Model (DSM) of the Colorado River corridor from the forebay of GCD downstream to Lake Mead, and along the major tributaries to the Colorado River. The proposed schedule for this data collection mission would be in May of 2021, during the first year of the FY2021-23 TWP. The data sets derived from previous remote sensing overflights have proven to be extremely valuable to many of the research projects conducted by GCMRC over the past two decades (Draut and Rubin, 2008; Grams and others, 2010; Ralston and others, 2008; Sankey and others, 2015a; Sankey and others, 2015b). More importantly, scientific research which relied heavily on these data were the basis for the 2016 LTEMP planning and will be used in the ROD implementation process (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016).

The LTEMP states sediment as a resource of key interest and a primary driver for many of the proposed flows defined in the LTEMP ROD. Specifically, the document describes the long-term effects of HFEs and other dam operations on sandbar deposition and rehabilitation, and strategically collected aerial photography and photogrammetrically-derived DSMs provide greater context and understanding of trends otherwise measured through the Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research project (Project B) with remote camera photographs, topographic surveys conducted at the long-term monitoring sandbar sites, and extended, reach based channel mapping surveys. Derived overflight image-based data sets that classify system wide areas of exposed sand will assist these field-based methods in quantifying sediment storage throughout the CRe on a decadal time scale. Additionally, adjusted elevation data from the DSM surface will be merged with the topographic and bathymetric data collected during channel mapping surveys (Project B.2) to develop full channel geometry maps for specific segments of the river, allowing for more complete volumetric calculations and improved hydrologic flow modeling of the system over time.

The importance of cultural resources is described in the LTEMP objective and resources. Similar to the sediment storage project, the overflight imagery and derived data sets will play an important role in measuring and tracking changes in sediment and vegetation at cultural resource sites as defined in LTEMP (East and others, 2016). An imagery data set collected during this TWP would provide the next necessary time interval for future inventory and monitoring of these sites.

Riparian vegetation has also been identified as a key resource in the LTEMP. The ability for researchers (Riparian Vegetation Monitoring, Project C) to monitor changes in woody riparian vegetation in response to dam operations is dependent upon the acquisition of new imagery data sets that are consistent with those previously collected (Sankey and others, 2015a,b). Data collection needs to conducted at a time interval that allows researchers to track key vegetation changes such as encroachment onto sandbars, a process known to cause channel narrowing (Dean and Schmidt, 2011) and quantify the reduction in exposed sand area (Sankey and others, 2015a). Lastly, classifications derived from the imagery data will be used to detect vegetation succession at the landscape-scale for woody species and some obligate herbaceous riparian species (Ralston and others, 2008). Strategically planning the appropriate time interval for future missions provides optimization of measurements on the long-term response of riparian vegetation to dam operations under the new LTEMP and the preferred alternative. Fish monitoring efforts occurring in the Colorado River downstream of GCD, in the LCR downstream of Blue Springs, and in other Colorado River tributaries in Grand Canyon now use the current overflight data (Durning and others, 2016) for spatial positioning of sampling data, navigating waterways and side canyons, and recording contextual site information. Colorado River fish sampling since 2012 has been based on a GIS reference system derived from the two most recent remote sensing imagery data sets (Yard and others, 2016). While a new imagery data set collected in 2021 may not warrant updating the existing mainstem fish sampling system, the new imagery will certainly be used as a critical data reference for the next five to seven years of fish monitoring.

Use of the proposed May 2021 imagery data set is a distinct and important tool that assists many of the proposed projects in this TWP. The overflight is a resource that has both an immediate and a longer-term (e.g., decadal) payoff. For these reasons, this project is mission critical to successfully inform the GCDAMP on performance of the LTEMP ROD.

Project M. Administration

The Administration budget covers salaries for the administrative assistant, librarian, budget analyst, the three members of the logistics support staff, as well as leadership and management personnel for GCMRC. Leadership and management personnel salaries include those for the GCMRC Chief and Deputy Chief as well as half the salary for one program manager. Travel and training includes most of the travel and training costs for administrative personnel and the cost of GCMRC staff to travel to AMWG and TWG meetings. Operating expenses includes 1) GSA vehicle costs including monthly lease fees, mileage costs, and any costs for accidents and damage; 2) DOI vehicle costs including gas, maintenance, and replacements costs; 3) GCMRC’s Information Technology equipment costs; and 4) a $20,000 annual contribution to the equipment and vehicles working capital fund. Cooperator funding is for support of the Partners in Science Program with Grand Canyon Youth.

Project N. Hydropower Monitoring and Research

The LTEMP ROD (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a) states that the objective of the hydropower and energy resource goal is to, “maintain or increase Glen Canyon Dam electric energy generation, load following capability, and ramp rate capability, and minimize emissions and costs to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with improvement and long-term sustainability of downstream resources.” Project N will identify, coordinate, and collaborate with external partners on monitoring and research opportunities associated with operational experiments at GCD designed to meet hydropower and energy resource objectives, as stated in the LTEMP ROD (U.S. Department of the interior, 2016a).

Operational experiments include proposed experiments in the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b), and other identified operational scenarios at GCD to improve hydropower and energy resources, while consistent with improvement and long-term sustainability of other downstream resources. Project N will prioritize monitoring and research of proposed experiments in the LTEMP EIS and consider impacts of other proposed experiments on hydropower and energy as part of the experimental design. Project N will also utilize metrics in the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b) and research by Jenkins-Smith and others (2016) to inform opportunities to incorporate the total economic value of hydropower into the assessment of operational changes at GCD. Coordinated project implementation and development will occur between Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), and other collaborators to utilize and build on existing hydropower and energy models and data, specifically from Appendix K in the LTEMP EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b).

Appendices

• Appendix 1. Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring
• Appendix 2a. Potential Budget Allocation Summary by Project and Year
• Appendix 2b. Potential Budget Allocation – FY2018
• Appendix 2c. Potential Budget Allocation – FY2019
• Appendix 2d. Potential Budget Allocation – FY2020
• Appendix 2e. Potential Budget Allocation Experimental Projects

• GCDAMP Planning
• GCDAMP Budget and Workplan Page
• Budget AdHoc Group Page

• Summary Report of the Peer Review for the 2020 Annual Project Report
• GCMRC FY20 Annual Project Report
• GCMRC FY19 Annual Project Report
• GCMRC FY18 Annual Project Report
• Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Budget and Work Plan— Fiscal Years 2018–2020, Final AMWG Draft: September 11, 2017
• GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process (Updated October 19, 2016)
• Conservation Measures Extracted from the Nov. 28, 2016 USFWS LTEMP Biological Opinion
• Appendix D Draft Final Proposed Action Triggers for the Management of Humpback Chub, Colorado River, Grand Canyon
• PEP: Final Report for the Fisheries Program Review

• CRAHG
• SEAHG Monitoring and Research High Priorities for FY18-20.
• TAHG Information Needs

2021

• GCMRC FY2020 Budget Expenditures
• Fiscal Year 2020 Expenditures Report

2020

• COVID-19 Impacts to FY20 Workplan
• U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center – Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Project Report

2019

• Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget Presentation
• End of Fiscal Year 2018 Reporting Presentation
• Technical Work Group Chair Report and Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process Presentation

2018

• Possible Experimental Actions to be Implemented in CY 2019
• Discussion of Experimental Actions to be Considered in CY19 and Beyond
• [https ://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2018-08-22-amwg-meeting/Attach_06.pdf Development of a Budget Recommendation from the TWG to the AMWG]
• Development of a Budget Recommendation to the Adaptive Management Group PPT
• Discussion of Experimental Actions to be Considered in CY19 and Beyond II
• FY 2019 Proposed Budget PPT
• GCMRC Budget and Work Plan Update PPT
• FY 18-20 Budget Update PPT
• State of the Budget and Work Plan and Consideration of Potential Changes to the Fiscal Year 2 Triennial Work Plan PPT

2017

• EM Dated May 9, 2017, Subject: Suspension of FACA Meetings & Activities
• Overarching Comments from Budget Discussion
• Combined Budget Ad Hoc Group Notes
• Science Advisor Comments on Draft GCMRC TWP and Work Plan
• Science Advisor Comments on Draft USBR TWP and Work Plan
• Preliminary Comments on Draft TWP and Work Plan PPT
• Preliminary Draft of GCMRC's TWP and Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-2020
• Preliminary Reclamation FY18-20 TWP and Budget PPT
• Draft - Bureau of Reclamation TWP and Work Plan Fiscal Years 2018-2020
• Status of Developing Triennial Budget and Work Plan
• FY2018-20 Triennial Budget and Work Plan
• Upcoming Budget and Group Exercise
• Management Program Funding Considerations
• As Requested by the AMWG, Review the FY17 Budget
• AMWG Request to Review Potential Budget Changes

Draft Program Areas for 2018-20 TWP

Based on ROD Resource Categories (see page 6 of the ROD)

• Archaeological and Cultural Resources
• Humpback Chub
• Hydropower and Energy
• Other Native Fish Species
• Recreational Experience
• Sediment
• Tribal Resources
• Rainbow Trout Fishery
• Riparian Vegetation
• Water Quality and Food Base (added, part of KA)
• Invasive Fish Species (added, part of KA)

• Natural Processes: Not used (is an evaluation of above resources as related to “natural” benchmarks)

Humpback Chub

Ongoing actions:

• Translocations of humpback chub into tributaries of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons
• Spring and fall humpback chub population estimate
• Control or removal of nonnative fish in tributaries prior to chub translocations
• Humpback chub refuge population at a federal hatchery
• Ensure that a stable or upward trend of humpback chub mainstem aggregations can be achieved by:

1. Annual monitoring of the Little Colorado River humpback chub aggregation (e.g., juvenile chub monitoring parameters).
2. Annual monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River to determine status and trends of humpback chub.
3. Periodic surveys to identify additional aggregations and individual humpback chub.
4. Evaluate existing aggregations and determining drivers of these aggregations.
5. Explore means of expanding humpback chub populations outside of the Little Colorado River Inflow aggregation.

• Disease and parasite monitoring

New actions:

• Feasibility study for translocation of humpback chub into Upper Havasu Creek (above Beaver Falls).
• Evaluate other tributaries for potential translocations.

Razorback Sucker

Ongoing actions:

• Larval and small-bodied fish monitoring.

Actions to benefit all native aquatic species

Ongoing actions:

• Investigate the possibility of renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide.
• Remove brown trout (and other nonnative species) from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded spawning populations develop.

New actions:

• Explore the efficacy of a temperature control device at the dam to respond to potential extremes in hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that could result in nonnative fish establishment.
• Preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam.
• Fund the NPS and GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to alter the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12.
• Develop a plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species.
• Experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon

Southwestern willow flycatcher and Yuma Ridgway’s rail

• Conduct Yuma Ridgway’s rail surveys
• Conduct southwestern willow flycatcher surveys

• Spring HFEs ≤  45,000 cfs in March or April
• Proactive Spring HFEs ≤ 45,000 cfs in April, May, or June
• Fall HFEs ≤ 45,000 cfs in October or November
• Fall HFEs > 96‐hr duration in October or November
• Trout management flows from May to August
• Macroinvertebrate production flows from May to August
• Humpback chub translocations (mainstem and tributaries)
• Larval humpback chub head‐start program
• Mechanical removal of rainbow trout from LCR reach
• Mechanical removal of invasive fish species
• Riparian vegetation restoration

The Technical Work Group (TWG) at its January 27, 2017 meeting identified a preliminary list of budget items that it wanted to be considered in the FY 18-20 TWP.

• GCDAMP TWG budget guidance tables (Part 1)
• GCDAMP TWG budget guidance tables (Part 2)

Hot Topics:

• Humpback chub in Western Grand Canyon
• Invasive species surveillance and response (brown trout and green sunfish in Glen Canyon)
• Foodbase Augmentation
• Nutrients
• Synthesis of TEK and indigenous knowledge systems and integrate into AMP
• Hualapai Archive Project
• Arch site and terrace monitoring in Glen Canyon Reach
• Integration of tribal value and knowledge into treatment of archaeological sites
• Cool water TCD and generation on the bypass tubes
• Experiments that could increase hydropower value
• Impacts of TMFs
• HFE monitoring
• Study how lower down ramping rates of HFEs relates to slower eroding beaches via building lower sloping beaches
• Re-evaluate triggers for spring HFEs to include biological considerations as well as sediment
• TWP Chapter 2 to represent the Strategic Science Plan

The following are a photo record of the TWG Budget Preliminary List Exercise. You can click on the following images 1x and 2x to get to a larger view.

Overall

Multiple Topics

Sediment

Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Aquatic Foodbase

Humpback chub

Trout

Invasive Fish Species

Hydropower and Energy

First Draft

• BAHG table for the FY18-20 TWP (20170313)

BAHG meeting #1

• BAHG meeting #1 2017-03-07 (draft)
• BAHG meeting #1 2017-03-07 (final)

BAHG meeting #2

• BAHG meeting #2 2017-03-10 (draft)
• BAHG meeting #2 2017-03-10 (final)

BAHG meeting #3: Other Native Fish Species (other than HBC), Rainbow Trout Fishery, Nonnative Invasive Species, and Riparian Vegetation

• BAHG meeting #3 2017-03-17 (draft)
• BAHG meeting #3 2017-03-17 (final RL)
• BAHG meeting #3 2017-03-17 (final)

BAHG meeting #4: Nutrients, Humpback Chub, Foodbase

• BAHG meeting #4 2017-03-20 (draft)
• BAHG meeting #4 2017-03-20 (final)

BAHG meeting #5: Sediment, Socioeconomics, Cultural Resources

• BAHG meeting #5 2017-03-23 (final)

Science Advisors Review

• GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Review of Reclamation FY18-20 Triennial Plan First Draft of May, 2017
• GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator In-Document Annotation of Reclamation FY18-20 Triennial Plan First Draft of May, 2017

Second Draft

• BAHG meeting notes (7-6-2017): Reclamation Budget
• BAHG meeting notes (7-13-2017): Reclamation Budget, GCMRC Projects A, B, and J

Science Advisors Review

• GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Review of Reclamation FY18-20 Triennial Plan Second Draft of June 30, 2017

• March 16: BAHG meeting to discuss Other Native Fish Species (other than HBC), Rainbow Trout Fishery, Nonnative Invasive Species, and Riparian Vegetation
• March 20: BAHG meeting to discuss Nutrients, Humpback Chub, Foodbase
• March 23: BAHG meeting to discuss Sediment, Socioeconomics, Cultural Resources
• April 10: annotated abstracts to TWG (First Draft)
• April 20-21: TWG meeting with feedback
• April 26: TWG member written comments back to GCMRC / Reclamation
• April 28 (9-11 MDT): BAHG meeting (conference call) to discuss TWG comments
• May 9: Suspension of FACA meetings
• July 1: Draft full workplan (Second Draft) to Sound Science and BAHG / TWG, DOI, Tribes
• July 6: Review process, general overview, BOR work plan and budget
• July 13: Science Advisers comments on GCMRC work plan (and BOR if available), GCMRC review Projects A (Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport), B (Sandbar and Sediment Storage), and J (Socioeconomic)
• July 20: GCMRC review Projects Projects E (Nutrients and Temperature), F (Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology), and G (Humpback Chub)
• July 27: GCMRC review Projects Projects H (Trout), I (Non-natives), K (Geospatial Science), and L (Overflight)
• August 3: GCMRC review Projects Projects C (Riparian Vegetation), D (Vegetation Management for Dunefields, Terraces, and Archaeological Sites), and M (Administration)
• August 3 (1230-130 MDT): BAHG call to discuss Second Draft
• August 4: BAHG written comments due to GCMRC / Reclamation
• August ??: BAHG and Sound Science meeting (conference call) to review Science Advisers comments
• August 18: Draft (Third / Final Draft) to TWG
• August 24??: BAHG call to discuss Third Draft??
• August ??: GCMRC and Reclamation provide a final draft TWP to the AMWG for their review.
• August 30-31: TWG meeting at GCMRC (Flagstaff) to discuss and approve budget
• September 20-21: AMWG meets (Phoenix/Tempe TBD) to provide input on the GCMRC and Reclamation draft TWP and provide a recommendation to the SOI.
• October 1: Fiscal Year 1 begins under the TWP guidance.
• November 1: Consumer Price Index becomes available.
• Late November: Science and management meeting with DOI and cooperators.
• December: Budget is finalized. USGS produces GCMRC annual project reports document for prior year work.