REVIEW OF TERREST

MONITORING PROTO

FOR THE GRAND CA

Report of the 2007 Pro

Evaluation Panel (P
Panelists

• Loretta Battaglia, Assistant Professor, Dep

Biology, Southern Illinois University

• Darold Batzer, Professor, Department of E

University of Georgia

• Geneva Chong, Research Ecologist, US G

Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science 

• David Cooper, Senior Research Scientist, 

Forest, Rangeland and Watershed StewarState University – Panel Chairman

• Andrew Hudak, Research Forester and La

Ecologist, US Forest Service, Rocky MounStation, Moscow, Idaho

• Michael Young, Research Fisheries Biolog

Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationMontana
Charge to Panelis

“Review and critique the existing 

effort/findings and recommend core monitoring protocols/methmeet the established Core MonInformation Needs (CMIN) assoterrestrial biological resources 
Urquhart et al. (2000) recommende

of a comprehensive monitoring stracomponents: (1) endangered species assessmen(2) monitoring for model developme(3) inventory of plants and animals; (4) long-term monitoring of the mainGood progress on all of these 4 com
GOAL 6: Protect or improve the bio

and spring communities within the CRiver ecosystem, including threatenendangered species and their criticPEP: The spring communities are ninfluenced by dam operations and mand we recommend the removal of community from discussion. The thendangered species appear to be mother entities, so they should also bfrom this discussion, but the GCMRcollaborate with these other entities data or analyses.
MO 6.1: Maintain marsh community abun

composition, and area in the Colorado Rin such a manner that native species are CMIN 6.1.1: Determine and track the abucomposition, distribution, and area of the community as measured at 5-year or othintervals based on life cycles of the specchange for the community. PEP: Many marsh communities are large

river regulation. The reduced peak flows flows have created relatively stable hydrofavoring marsh development, and their oabundance has likely increased relative era. The PEP recommends that managemaintenance of these anthropogenically as a priority.
MO 6.2: Maintain New High Water Zone 

community patch number, distribution, coarea to be no lower than values estimatePEP: the maintenance of these patches 

appear realistic given the current nature system. Variation in magnitude of manamay not be sufficient to maintain a dynamsystem; hydrologic stabilization and flow allowed dominance of non-native specietamarisk and annual grasses. These non-

pose significant risks to the structure and functiriparian community (e.g., increased risk of fire, space, and stabilization of soil features that werdynamic). Tamarisk is not a desirable com

maintained in the NHWZ. Detection, eramonitoring for non-native species should into the vegetation sampling and monitorThe PEP recommends vegetation restor

tamarisk (and other invasive non-native sremoval. 
MO 6.3: Maintain Old High Water Zone (OHW

abundance, composition, and distribution in thecosystem.CMIN 6.3.1: Determine and track the abundanand distribution of the OHWZ community as mor other appropriate intervals based on life cycand rates of change for the community. PEP: Under the present flow regime, this goal without planting, irrigation, and land managemmesquite and tamarisk in this zone will die withdecades and there is no recruitment of these scould only be maintained “naturally” by managexceeding 90,000-100,000 cfs. If actions are native species composition and structure (aganative species), monitoring should be directed effectiveness of such actions for use in an adamanagement framework.) 
MO 6.4: Maintain sand beach community abun

composition, and distribution in the Colorado Rthe target level.CMIN 6.4.1: Determine and track the abundancand distribution of the sand beach community ayear or other appropriate intervals based on life species and rates of change for the communityPEP: Historically the sand beaches were essen

maintained by high spring flows, and lacked devegetation. The PEP recognizes that determini“target level” is challenging in a system that haalternative, stable state. Maintaining some of tpre-dam system is desirable; where feasible, sreduction may be warranted on beaches. If acreduce/remove vegetation, monitoring should b

evaluate the effectiveness of such actions for umanagement framework. NEED GOAL / BASE
MO 6.5: Reduce invasive non-native species a

distribution.CMIN 6.5.1: Determine and track the abundandistribution of non-native species in the Coloraecosystem as measured at 5-year or other appbased on life cycles of the species and rates ocommunity. PEP: Because of the large effort necessary, namanagers should determine which nonnative s

controlled or eradicated, and prioritize where sdirected. Tamarisk is highly invasive in the Grcan change ecosystem functioning; the PEP rereduction of this species should be a high prioeradication efforts are ongoing in the Grand Cnot targeted the Colorado River corridor. If actreduce and control non-native species, monitodirected to evaluate the effectiveness of such an adaptive management framework.
MO 6.6: Maintain seep and spring habit

Colorado River ecosystemCMIN 6.6.1: Determine and track the abcomposition, and distribution of spring acommunities as measured at 5-year or oappropriate intervals based on life cycleand rates of change for the community. PEP: These habitats are largely indepeoperations, and it appears that other agtargeting seeps and springs in the Granrecommend that sampling for this CMIN discontinued by GCMRC, and instead rinformation from other agencies.
MO 6.7: Maintain riparian habitat in 

River ecosystem capable of supporsouthwestern willow flycatcher. CMIN 6.7.1: Determine and track thdistribution, and reproductive succesouthwestern willow flycatcher in thRiver ecosystem. PEP: It appears that other agencies targeting the southwestern willow flthe Grand Canyon. We recommend sampling for this CMIN be discontin

GCMRC, and instead rely on informother agencies. 
1) Vegetation mapping: develop a repea

approach to create vegetation maps thacompared over time to monitor changes location of vegetation types and to provfor designing terrestrial monitoring and aterrestrial monitoring data.2) Vegetation monitoring: develop a repaccurate approach to quantify changes non-native plant species composition an(cover and height) and their interactions and provide ground-truth data for veget3) Habitat analyses: develop a repeatabapproach to quantify interactions betwebiotic habitat characteristics and associaand invertebrate animals or taxonomic ginterest. 
Vegetation Mapp

A system for creating vegetation base m

to quantify changes in location and aretypes over time. We believe the proce(map) described in Ralston et al. (in rean adequate baseline to guide near-teefforts and quantify the extent of sevetypes at the time the data were collectchanges in available technology since 

initiated in 2002, and changes expecteremind us that the vegetation mapping static, and improvements should be mcontinuously. 

• Overall panel liked the approach for ve

mapping used by Ralston et al.
Remote Sensing for Veg. 

• Airborne high resolution digital im

airborne discrete-return light deteranging (LIDAR) data 

• Helicopter mounted cameras to a

corridor

• Hyperspectral imagery: 200 band

and near infrared and short wave (SWIR) 
Vegetation Classifica

for Mapping

• TWINSPAN used to develop cl

from plot data (Kearsley)

• Suggest agglomerative cluster 

more accurate

• Resample on schedule that ref

anticipated rate of change – ev
Vegetation Monitoring - 

• Generalized random tesselated s

suggested by Urquhart (NPS I&M 

• Spatially balanced analysis allows 

across entire study area

• 702 reaches of GC established an

chosen for sampling by GRTS. 

• No stratification of landscape prio

of reaches

• Within each reach, one sample po

along which a transect perpendicuriver was established
Vegetation Monito

• Along transect plots in pre-determ

stage heights: 15k, 25k, 35k, 45k, 

• Location: transect lines with perm

points and benchmarks, plots relosurveying 

• Plots are permanent vertical point

based upon change in stage/disch

• Frequency: Research to determin

vegetation change since dam comrecent decades. Use rate of chandetermine frequency of resamples
• Analysis with NPMANOVA to c

metrics among plots within zonacross zones investigate directchange in vegetation compositi

• Explicit questions would help fo

analyses: 

– Is NHWZ becoming similar to OH– During drought how does each z
• Debris fan eddy complex units 

identified and used in GRTS s

• Vegetation of pools vs. debris 

different

• Close integration of physical a

resources of GC is goal of GCrecommend identifying which unit of fan-eddy complex each in prior to analyze vegetation biota

• GRTS sample sites + Legacy 
Animal Monitorin

• CMIN 6.1.1. The abundance, com

distribution, and area of animals i

community were not addressed dnot appear that marshes were idedistinct habitat type for sampling, is some notion that these are sub“shoreline” category. We recommaddressing this ambiguity. 
• CMIN 6.4.1. The composition, a

and distribution of animals in sahabitats were not completely adbecause the differences among beaches, marshes, and NHWZ unclear. 
Monitoring of Particular 

Taxa

• We concur with many of the conc

reached by Kearsley et al. (2006) of animal taxa

• Analyses to have focused on inve• For invertebrates a wide range of 

were used: light traps, sweep netstraps, targeted sampling 

• Taxa ID to species
Recommend

• Future work is on monitoring, n• ID to genus or family only• Limit methods to sweep netting 

include other methods only whenecessary to facilitate analysis sites and improve statistical rig
• Birds are important biota in Gran

• PEP not entirely sure what metho

being used

• Small mammals intensively samp

good indicators of zones and vegcomposition – should be continue

• Distribution of beaver may be rel

management – analyses should 
Animal Summary

• Impressed with sampling program 

zone animals 

• Past attempts to link animal and 

distribution patters was useful foecological mechanisms

• However, past level of sampling 

sustainable because many projeincomplete even four years after ended. 
• GCMRC efforts should now focus 

not inventory

• Choose indicator, keystone, or um

species to monitor, despite their sas representatives. 

• Vegetation monitoring program sh

a framework for animal monitoring understanding their ecological conjoint responses to dam operation. 
NEED A RESEARCH PROGRAM 

TERRESTRIAL MONITORING A

• Statistics: How large do changes 

for detectability?

• Need specific goals for statistica

amount of change that you wish 

• Given variability in GC is design 

enough to detect change?
Need for A Reference S

• the effects of dam operations can

appreciated unless sampling is cportions of the river system that aaffected by the dam

• Need baseline to understand wh

has occurred in all river stage zoalong upstream-downstream con
Research Needs

• Pre-dam aerial photos of the can

characterize pre-dam vegetation distribution/composition 

• Colorado River through Cataract 

provide suitable reference site fo

vegetation 

• Other minimally regulated or unre

rivers in the Southwest already bmonitored might also be used for 

These smaller rivers must occur canyons dominated by fan eddy and support intact vegetation and communities 
1. The Management Objectives (MOs) 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINdirect GCMRC actions need re-evaluare unrelated to dam operations, othunrealistic, and others need clarificat

2. We recommend that CMINs 6.6.6 (se

springs) and 6.6.7 (SW willow flycatc

discontinued by the GCMRC, and tharrange to receive data being collectagencies on these topics. 

3. Vegetation maps need to be finalized

4. A schedule and strategy for repeat m

change detection analyses develope

5. Vegetation monitoring plot design sh

modified as discussed in the vegetat
6. The suite of biota chosen for mon

reduced to include only organismrigorous sampling and methods crigorous analyses. 

7. The absence of monitoring sites 

Grand Canyon reduces the strenginferences about the effects of daReference sites not subject to the 

imposed by Glen Canyon Dam arbut their location may vary depensuite of monitoring variables undeconsideration.
8. Publication of results in peer re

journals should be a priority, as large audience interested in horegulation affects Grand Canyoand the journal review process valuable mechanism for quality 

9. Sampling frequency should be d

both by expected rates of chanexpected drivers of change (e.droughts, management high-flo