Update on Update on 

Core Monitoring Team Core Monitoring Team

meeting, 9 April, 2004 meeting, 9 April, 2004

Presented to TWG 4 May, 2004 Presented to TWG 4 May, 2004
Process Process

• Collaborative• Decision points• Memos
Roles and responsibilitie

Roles and responsibilitie

• Role of the Chair• Role of the TWG ad hoc• Role of GCMRC• Role of SAB• Participation
Ultimate Goal Ultimate Goal

• Completion of a high quality, long-te

core monitoring plan by 30 Septemb2004 that has a high probability of acceptance by the full TWG and AM
More-proximate Goal proximate Goal

• The goal of the core monitoring prog

to provide a consistent, long-term (1years) measure of the effects of GleCanyon Dam operations on key resoin the Colorado River Ecosystem as defined in the GCDAMP Strategic P
Definitions and Definitions and

Assumptions Assumptions
Core

• 1, the central or innermost part of 

anything: 2, the most important part 

a matter, discussion, etc.; essence; 

No ornaments or frills!
Core monitoring Core monitoring

• Core monitoring is consistent, long-term, 

repeated measurements using scientificaaccepted protocols to measure status anof key resources to answer specific management questions. Core monitoring implemented on a fixed schedule regardlbudget or other circumstances (e.g., wateexperimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, non-native control, etc.affecting target resources. 
Assumptions Assumptions

• Use available technology, as appropriate• Minimalist framework• Meet the needs of stakeholders and answers their specific 

management questions

• Strive for automated techniques that are less invasive and 

efficient

• The budget needs to support the plan (e.g., 40-60% of ou

for core?)

• Build for consistency• Build for longevity• Flexibility to incorporate new technologies• The plan will be reviewed and accepted by SAB/TWG/AM

appropriate

• The results of monitoring will be regularly reported
Resource categories Resource categories

• A. Sediment • B. Wildlife/Vegetation• C. Fish• D. Food base• E. Cultural Resources• Eb. Register eligible historic properties• F. Hydrology• G. Water Quality• H. Recreation• I. Threatened and endangered species• J. Power• K. Non-native species
Relevant questions Relevant questions

• What and why do managers need to know• Where do they want to know it?• How frequently do they need to know?• What are the general methods to obtain t

information?

• What is the level of precision/accuracy ne• How will the monitoring data be presente

it answering the managers questions (whthe metrics of success?
Assessing what we already h

Assessing what we already h

• Goals, MO’s, CMIN’s (Fairley)• GCMRC core monitoring in FY04-05 

(GCMRC)

• PEP recommendations (Melis)• SAB recommendations (GCMRC)• Recreation CM needs for NPS 

(Henderson)
GCMRC proposal a

GCMRC proposal a

a framework a framework
Sediment Sediment

• What:

1.Is there any significant change in the trend 

storage over time (what is the starting condition)?

2.What is the effect of dam operations and n

perturbations on sediment storage?

• Where: Lees Ferry, Marble Canyon, below the Litt

Colorado River

• How often: Fine sediment storage- every 2 years

• Methods: Sand bar area & Volume

Mass balance sediment transport determinations
Table of contents Table of contents

• History• Mission/Goals• Definitions• Assumptions• Resources• Questions• Reporting process• Feedback loop• Roles and responsibilities 

(compliance support)

• Relationship to other 

components of amp

• Methods used• Timeline and deliverables

• Development, decis

prioritization process

• Budget• Scheduling/Impleme• Flexibility/consistenc• Accuracy and precis• Data management • Interrelationships/integra

metric

• Logistics, permitting

compliance

• Relationship to scor
Position statement Position statement
Timeline* and deliverable

Timeline* and deliverable

• Writing must be completed in May• June 9 draft• June 23 review completed by SAB, T• July 9 AMWG draft to Linda• August 9 presentation to AMWG

*No margin for error, no room for ornaments
What remains to be done

What remains to be done

• Should we use a systems approach• What is missing (resources/question• How do we define success/stopping 

points?

• Greater resolution of resource categ• Stakeholder priorities
Writing assignments Writing assignments

• Larry Stevens – history of core mon

efforts

• Dennis Kubly – fundamental 

mandates/obligations (GCPA, EIS/R

• NPS – recreation core monitoring ne• Each stakeholder – list of core moni

priorities