<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> 

GENERAL CORE MONITORING PLAN 

SPECIFIC ISSUES 

November 30, 2009 

GENERAL PROCESS 

1. Need to identify key goals of our long term monitoring program 

2. Develop individual plans slowly based on scientific merits 

3. PEP reviews have a specific strength, but do not necessarily ask if we are doing too much, or is in 

line with management goals 

CRITERIA FOR ELEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANS (DESCRIPTION OF STEP 4) 

4. Description of current and projected funding elements not under CM so that we can better see 

what is in and what is out 

5. Describe how protocols will be updated over time, calibrated to historical data after change 

6. PEPs should be on 7-10 yr schedules, 5 yrs is too quick 

7. Figure 3 – demonstrates effects monitoring and CMT, should be emphasized 

8. Further discussion of the role of conceptual models in the program and input from science and 

management in how those are updated and refined 

OVERALL COST 

9. Remote sensing is expensive, is it necessary at this level? 

10. Project budgets are proposed to increase by 5% annually; no recognition of budget limitations, 

CMT and SPG discussed whether budget drives sampling level or vice versa 

11. How much of the USGS’s Southwestern Research Center and staff is supported by the AMP. Are 

long-absent USGS staff being supported by the AMP? On lines 7-10 a quote is given about the 

quality of information; however, the EIS and ROD also indicate that GCMRC is to be a small, 

efficient body, which does not appear to be the present condition of that office. 

DFCS 

12. SPG process and DFCs not described enough in the plan 

SCOPE OF MONITORING 

13. All actions and responsibilities are not that of GCMRC alone

14. Collaboration with NPS I&M, should move beyond CRE

15. Recreational impacts on CRE resources knowledge is lacking

GOALS 

GOAL 1

16. Explore feasibility to restore native invertebrates 

17. Monitoring schedule should remain flexible to consider ecosystem level considerations which 

we should learn more about 

GOAL 2 

18. More attention to native fish other than HBC should be given, HBC may not be a great 

indicator for all native fish 

19. GCMRC should use caution in scaling back HBC sampling efforts based on PEP 

recommendations, consider monitoring in fall for effects of removing HBC for 

translocations/refuges, lower 1200 

20. Continuation of nonnative fish removal efforts in the LCR reach is not taking into 

consideration ongoing discussions with tribes 
GOAL 3 

21. This should go beyond razorback suckers, and be updated 

GOAL 4 

22. Nonnative fish management concerns are not adequately dealt with in this plan, or 

acknowledged, including trout natal origins issues 

23. PEP recommendations could be described better both under goal 2 and 4 

24. PEP recommended not spending resources in evaluating early life stages of trout, so why is 

GCMRC continuing to propose that? 

25. There should be more under this goal to discuss downstream movement of trout/natal origins 

issues 

GOAL 6 

26. Needs a strategy for tamarisk beetle impacts, work with NPS 

27. Greater emphasis on riparian vegetation, integrating PEP review, and looking at predictive 

models 

28. Generally, the plan for this goal needs work, a number of issues identified 

GOAL 9 

29. Greater integration with NPS 

30. More detail needed 

GOAL 10 

31. Update after economics workshop, 

GOAL 11 

32. Cultural resources is broader than the monitoring program which is focused primarily on 

archaeological properties and physical changes, 2000 PEP recommends less core monitoring 

for effects of dam operations, and more focus should be made on non-archaeological 

properties; questions implementation of PEP recommendations 

33. Questions on statements of strong linkages between dam operations and effects on cultural 

resources 

34. Premature to consider this for core monitoring 

35. How will information management which incorporates sensitive tribal information be 

handled? 

36. Numerous technical comments on specifics (Pueblo of Zuni) 

GOAL 12 

37. This is more broad than successful monitoring and research, it entails interaction with 

scientists, political entities, managers, and the legal constructs of society – adaptive 

management 

38. Goal should be about improving scientific integrity not costly remote sensing technology 

39. DASA should be higher priority for numerous upgrades including serving data, web update, 

providing updates, etc.