Difference between revisions of "FY18-20 GCMRC Triennial Budget and Workplan"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
The 3 elements of this project are as follows: | 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). | |
− | 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. | |
− | 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). | |
− | 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 | + | 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 |
− | 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 | 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 | sand budgets for the six CRe reaches are available at this website (Sibley and others, 2015). In | ||
Line 156: | Line 131: | ||
relevant to river management, especially to management in the GCDAMP. To date, this ongoing | 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 | project has published over 80 peer-reviewed journal articles, books, proceedings articles, and | ||
− | USGS reports, a full listing of which are available at: | + | 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. | download these publications. | ||
Line 432: | Line 407: | ||
==Project F. Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology == | ==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 terrestrialaquatic | ||
+ | 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 == | ==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 == | ==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 markrecapture | ||
+ | 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== | ==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. 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 decisiontheoretic | ||
+ | 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 == | ==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 webbased, | ||
+ | interactive tools and mapping products, allowing the GCDAMP to make informed, timesensitive | ||
+ | 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 == | ==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, reachbased | ||
+ | channel mapping surveys. Derived overflight image-based data sets that classify systemwide | ||
+ | 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 == | ==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 == | ==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== | ==Appendices== |
Revision as of 16:44, 13 March 2018
|
GCMRC Triennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2018-2020The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is a science-based process for continually improving management practices related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) by emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation, in fulfillment of the consultation and research commitments of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA). The Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Upper Colorado Region is responsible for administering funds for the GCDAMP and providing those funds for monitoring, research, and stakeholder involvement. The majority of program funding is derived from hydropower revenues; however, supplemental funding is provided by various Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies that receive appropriations. These agencies include Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The budget and work plan for fiscal years (FY) 2018–2020 was largely developed in consideration of the Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP EIS) and on the basis of outcomes from previous work plans. Additional consideration was given to meeting commitments outlined in: (1) the 2007 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Proposed Adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Opinion); (2) the 2016 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP EIS) (2016 Opinion); and (3) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Draft 2016 Programmatic Agreement. A consumer price index (CPI) of 1% was assumed for FY 2018, FY 2019, and FY 2020. The budget and work plan will be updated annually with the actual CPI for the upcoming year. [1] |
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. |
---|
|
|