1

Whetton, Linda A

From: hfairley@usgs.gov

Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:23 PM

To: Mary Barger; Mary <barger@wapa.gov, Barrett/BRD/USGS/DOI; Clifford <cibarre@q.com, 

Bills/BRD/USGS/DOI; Debra <debra____bills@fws.gov, Bulletts/BRD/USGS/DOI; Charley 

<cbulletts@kaibabpaiute-nsn.gov, Capron/BRD/USGS/DOI; Shane <capron@wapa.gov, 

Caramanian/BRD/USGS/DOI; Lori <Lori____Caramanian@ios.doi.gov, 

Christensen/BRD/USGS/DOI; Kerry <cuszhman@yahoo.com, Cox/BRD/USGS/DOI; Jerry 

<jerryleecox@durango.net, Crawford/BRD/USGS/DOI; Marianne <mcrawford@usbr.gov, 

Davis/BRD/USGS/DOI; William__E. <wdavis@ecoplanaz.com, Dongoske/BRD/USGS/DOI; 

Kurt <kdongoske@cableone.net, Harris/BRD/USGS/DOI; Christopher__S. 

<csharris@crb.ca.gov, Henderson/BRD/USGS/DOI; Norm 

<Norm____Henderson@nps.gov, Heuslein/BRD/USGS/DOI; Amy <Amy.Heuslein@bia.gov, 

Johnson/BRD/USGS/DOI; Rick <richard.johnson@npgcable.com, Jordan/BRD/USGS/DOI; 

John <jcjordan1@cox.net, King/BRD/USGS/DOI; Robert <robertking@utah.gov, 

Knowles/BRD/USGS/DOI; Glen__W <gknowles@usbr.gov, Kowalski/BRD/USGS/DOI; Ted 

<ted.kowalski@state.co.us, Kubly/BRD/USGS/DOI; Dennis__M <DKubly@usbr.gov, 

Mietz/BRD/USGS/DOI; Steven <Steven____Mietz@nps.gov, O'Brien/BRD/USGS/DOI; John 

<johnob@npgcable.com, Orton/BRD/USGS/DOI; Mary <mary@maryorton.com, 

Persons/BRD/USGS/DOI; William__R <wpersons@usgs.gov, Peterson/BRD/USGS/DOI; 

McClain <mpeterson@crc.nv.gov, Shields/BRD/USGS/DOI; John__W. 

<jshiel@seo.wyo.gov, Spiller/BRD/USGS/DOI; Sam <sam____spiller@fws.gov, 

Stevens/BRD/USGS/DOI; Larry <farvana@aol.com, Stewart/BRD/USGS/DOI; Bill 

<bstewart@azgfd.gov, Wegner/BRD/USGS/DOI; David <david.wegner@mail.house.gov, 

Yazzie/BRD/USGS/DOI; Curtis <curtis@navajohistoricpreservation.org, 

Yeatts/BRD/USGS/DOI; Michael <michael.yeatts@nau.edu, Balsom/BRD/USGS/DOI; Jan 

<Jan____Balsom@nps.gov, Benemelis/BRD/USGS/DOI; Perri <pfbenemelis@azwater.gov, 

Cantley/BRD/USGS/DOI; Garry <Garry.Cantley@bia.gov, English/BRD/USGS/DOI; Jeff 

<flyguide@hughes.net, Jackson-Kelly/BRD/USGS/DOI; Loretta <lorjac@frontiernet.net, 

James/BRD/USGS/DOI; Leslie <creda@qwest.net, Jansen/BRD/USGS/DOI; Sam 

<smdjansen@gmail.com, Kaplinski/BRD/USGS/DOI; Matt <matt.kaplinski@nau.edu, 

Kowalski/BRD/USGS/DOI; Ted <ted.kowalski@state.co.us, Lash/BRD/USGS/DOI; Nikola 

<nlash@grandcanyontrust.org, Makinster/BRD/USGS/DOI; Andy 

<amakinsteragf@qwestoffice.net, Omama/BRD/USGS/DOI; Emily 

<emily@grandcanyonwildlands.org, Ostler/BRD/USGS/DOI; Don <DOstler@usbr.gov, 

Palmer/BRD/USGS/DOI; S.__Clayton <cspalmer@wapa.gov, Potochnik/BRD/USGS/DOI; 

Andre <arp4@infomagic.net, Ryan/BRD/USGS/DOI; Thomas__P <TRyan@usbr.gov, 

Thiriot/BRD/USGS/DOI; James <jasthiriot@crc.nv.gov, ,, ,,, , , ,, , ,, , ,@usgs.gov

Cc: Andersen, Matthew E; Bennett, Glenn E; Daugherty, Mary M; Fairley, Helen; Grams, Paul E; 

Hamill, John F; Kitchell, Kate; Mankiller, Serena; Melis, Ted; Whetton, Linda A

Subject: revised CMP for TWG review and discussion

Attachments: CMP V6.3 6-23-10_md.pdf

Dear Colleagues, 

Attached below is a substantially revised version of the general Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) incorporating numerous 

recommended changes proposed by TWG members following the review of the October 2009 draft. In response to 

discussions at the December 2009 CMP workshop, Shane Capron and several TWG members also suggested we 

reorganize the old draft and add new text to elaborate on the four-step process that will be used to develop final core 

monitoring proposals for each resource goal. We have followed all of those suggestions and believe that the new draft is 

greatly improved as a result. GCMRC is still in the process of finalizing responses to the 240+ comments we received in 

response to the October 2009 draft, and we will be sending out that document shortly. However, we wanted to get this 

revised CMP to you today because it is on the agenda for discussion at next week's meeting. 

The major changes in this new draft are summarized below: 
2

• Chapter 1 (the introduction to the plan and review of previous efforts towards developing monitoring programs for 

the GCDAMP) has been edited for clarity and some of the previous text has been shortened and streamlined. A 

couple of reviewers had requested that the history section be expanded, while others had suggested shortening 

this section. Because this is a plan, not an administrative history, we opted more towards the latter approach. 

 However, most of the original text that was in the previous version of Chapter 1 remains intact and unchanged. 

• Chapter 2 has been edited and substantially shortened from the previous version. Chapter 2 now focuses on 

describing the various needs for monitoring data in the GCDAMP, and the conceptual and management 

frameworks in which monitoring occurs. Basically, the new chapter 2 is a slightly modified version of what was 

formerly the first half of Chapter 2 in the October 2009 version. 

• Chapter 3 is a new chapter. Some sections of text that were formerly at the end of Chapter 2 (description of the 

four-step process) have been moved to Chapter 3, along with most of the text that was formerly Chapter 5 in the 

10/2009 version (staffing needs and project costs). In addition, some new text was written and incorporated into 

Chapter 3. This chapter now focuses on describing the process we will follow to refine and approve individual 

core monitoring programs in the future, including discussion about the need for risk assessments and trade off 

analyses, and the management strategies to support implementation of the plan. 

• Chapter 4 (formerly Chapter 3 in the 10/2009 version) has been lightly edited and changes were made to the text 

in response to TWG comments. However, this chapter has undergone relatively minor revision compared to the 

first three chapters of the CMP. 

• Chapter 5 (formerly Chapter 4 in the 10/2009 version), has not changed except for some minor editing, 

 

We suggest that TWG review this document in two phases: 

 Phase 1: focus initially on Chapters 1 through 3 and agree on the general approach, main purposes for monitoring, 

and description of the four-step process 

 Phase 2: agree on the general approach outlined for developing the individual core monitoring reports (final core 

monitoring plans) for each of the goals, as described in Chapter 4, and for archiving and reporting data (chapter 5) 

For the upcoming TWG meeting, we would like to focus on Phase 1 review only. We realize that we have not allowed 

much time for you to review this new draft before the next TWG meeting, so we are requesting that you just focus on 

reading Chapter 3 and scan the other chapters (Chapters 1 and 2) prior to the TWG meeting. As you read it, please keep 

in mind that this document is Step 1 of a four-step process. The CMP lays out the general programmatic approach for 

developing and reaching agreement on more comprehensive core monitoring descriptions over the next couple of years; 

therefore, it does not go into detail about the specific monitoring protocols for each goal (this will be done in Step 4 of the

process). It is the general programmatic approach to achieving these more detailed core monitoring program descriptions 

that we are seeking to reach agreement on right now. 

We look forward to discussing this general core monitoring plan with you next week. 

Helen 

 

Helen Fairley, Sociocultural Program Manager 

US Geological Survey 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

2255 N. Gemini Drive - MS 9394 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

Phone: 928-556-7285 

Email: hfairley@usgs.gov
General Core Monitoring Plan for the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

Prepared by 

 

 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Southwest Biological Science Center 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Flagstaff, Arizona 

 

Draft prepared for Technical Work Group Review 

June 21, 2010 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
1 Contents 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Core Monitoring Plan ................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the General Core Monitoring Plan ................................................................... 2

1.2 Legislation, Statutes, Policy, and Strategic Planning .......................................................................... 2 

1.3 Boundary and Definition of the Colorado River Ecosystem ............................................................... 4 

1.4 History of Monitoring the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam .............................. 5 

1.4.1 Pre-GCES Era (1921–82) ............................................................................................................. 6 

1.4.2 Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Era (1982–96) ................................................................... 6 

1.4.3 GCMRC Era (1997–present) ...................................................................................................... 10 

Chapter 2. GCDAMP Monitoring Needs .................................................................................................... 18 

2.1 Monitoring within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Strategic Plan 

Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 18 

2.3 Core Monitoring Information Needs and Indicators of Resource Condition ................................... 22 

2.4 Relationship between Monitoring and Modeling ............................................................................ 22 

2.5 Integration of Monitoring and Management Activities across GCDAMP Programs........................ 23 

2.6 Integration with Other Monitoring Programs in the Region ............................................................. 24 

Chapter 3. Development of Individual Core Monitoring Plans and Management Strategy to Support 

Them ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 

3.1 Process to Develop Individual Core Monitoring Plans .................................................................... 27 

3.1.1 Information Needs Workshop .................................................................................................... 28 

3.1.2 Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel Reviews .......................................................................... 29 

3.1.3 Step 4: Core Monitoring Program Reports/Individual Core Monitoring Plans ........................ 30 

3.1.4 Principles of Individual Core Monitoring Plan Development ................................................... 30 

3.1.4.1 Goals and CMINs .................................................................................................................... 31 

3.1.4.2 Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 31 

3.1.4.3 Trade Off Analyses for Risk Assessment Purposes ................................................................. 31 

3.2. Implementation of Core Monitoring Plans .................................................................................. 32 

3.2.1 Implementation Timelines .......................................................................................................... 33 

3.2.2 Implementation of Individual Core Monitoring Programs ......................................................... 34 

3.2.3 Incorporating Future Technical Innovations into Monitoring Programs .................................... 35 

Evaluation of noninvasive sampling methods as a basic component of maintaining quality monitoring 

programs .............................................................................................................................................. 35 

3.3 Program Management and Role of Cooperators ............................................................................... 36 

3.3.1 GCMRC Staffing Requirements ................................................................................................. 37 

3.3.2 Information Outreach.................................................................................................................. 37 

3.3.3 Logistics and Permitting ............................................................................................................. 38 

3.3.4 Core Monitoring Program Costs ................................................................................................. 38 

Chapter 4. Core Monitoring Proposals by GCDAMP Goal ........................................................................ 41

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 47 

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations of desired 

species at higher trophic levels ................................................................................................................... 48 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 48 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 48 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 48 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 49 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 49 

i 
1 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 49 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 49 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 49 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 50 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule .................................................................................... 50 

Goal 2: Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove jeopardy for humpback chub 

and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitats ..................................... 51 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 51 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 51 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 52 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 52 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 52 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 53 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 54 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 55 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 55 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule .................................................................................... 57 

Goal 3: Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable ............................................. 58 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 58 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 58 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 58 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 59 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 59 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 59 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 59 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 59 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 60 

Estimated Annual Funding for Extirpated Species Core Monitoring Program ....................................... 60 

Goal 4: Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the extent 

practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish ............................... 61 

Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................. 61 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 61 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 61 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 62 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 62 

Summary of Monitoring Program ........................................................................................................... 62 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 62 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 62 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 63 

Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab Ambersnail ......................................................... 64 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 64 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 64 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 64 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 64 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 65 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 65 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 65 

ii 
1 Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 65 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 65 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule .................................................................................... 66 

Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including threatened and 

endangered species and their critical habitat ............................................................................................... 67 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 67 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 67 

Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 67 

Arthropods and Birds ........................................................................................................................... 68 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 68 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 68 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 68 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 69 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 69 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 69 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 70 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule .................................................................................... 71 

Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals ............................................................................................................................................................ 72 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 72 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 72 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 72 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 73 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 74 

Lake Powell ......................................................................................................................................... 74 

Colorado River Downstream from Lake Powell ................................................................................. 74

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 75 

Lake Powell ......................................................................................................................................... 75 

Colorado River Downstream from Lake Powell ................................................................................. 76

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals ..................................................................................................... 77 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 77 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 77 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 77 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 77 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 78 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 78 

Monitoring in-channel sediment storage – SedTrend .......................................................................... 79

Monitoring High-Elevation Sandbar Deposits and Campsites ............................................................ 80 

Monitoring Changes in Coarse-Grained Sediments and Impacts from Tributary Debris Flows ......... 80 

Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 

ecosystem, within the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystem goals ........................................................ 82 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 82 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 82 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 82 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 83 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 83 

iii 
1 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 86 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 86 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 86 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 86 

Monitoring Program Status/Implementation Schedule ........................................................................ 87 

Goal 10: Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and 

advisable, within the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystem goals .......................................................... 88 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 88 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 88 

Core Monitoring Information Needs Summary ...................................................................................... 88 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 88 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 90 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 90 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 90 

Program Status/Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................... 90 

Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, 

present, and future generations ................................................................................................................... 91 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 91 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 91 

Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................................... 92 

Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................................... 92 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 92 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 94 

Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................ 94 

Temporal Scope ................................................................................................................................... 94 

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 94 

Program Status/Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................... 94 

Goal 12: Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program .................... 95 

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................................. 95 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......................... 95 

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ 95 

Sandbars and Campsites ...................................................................................................................... 95 

Sediment Storage ................................................................................................................................. 96 

Shoreline Morphology ......................................................................................................................... 96 

Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................................................ 96 

Links to Resources .................................................................................................................................. 96 

Core Monitoring Information Needs Summary ...................................................................................... 96 

Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................................... 97 

Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................................. 98 

Four-band Digital Imagery .................................................................................................................. 98 

Hyperspectral Digital Imagery ............................................................................................................ 98 

Dual-laser Bathymetric/Terrestrial Lidar ............................................................................................ 99 

High-Resolution Terrestrial Lidar ....................................................................................................... 99 

Chapter 5. Data Management, Quality Assurance, and Reporting ........................................................... 100 

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 100 

5.2 Data Management Overview – Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................ 100 

5.3 Data Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................... 102 

iv 
1 5.4 Planning ........................................................................................................................................... 102 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

5.5 Electronic Data Repository ............................................................................................................. 104 

5.6 Analysis and Modeling .................................................................................................................... 107 

5.7 Reporting of Core Monitoring Data, Annual Assessments & Synthesis ......................................... 107 

Publication of Core Monitoring Data ................................................................................................ 107 

Annual Reporting Workshop ............................................................................................................. 108 

Annual Resources Fact Sheets on Status and Trends ........................................................................ 108 

SCORE Reports ................................................................................................................................. 109 

References ................................................................................................................................................. 110 

Appendix A: Core Monitoring Information Needs ................................................................................... 123 

Appendix B: Description of the Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) Review Process ................ 126 

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................. 129 

v 
1 List of Figures

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

Figure 1. The Colorado River ecosystem from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to 

Upper Lake Mead National Recreation Area .................................................................................... 4 

Figure 2. GCDAMP goals in a conceptual ecosystem hierarchy ..................................................... 18

Figure 3. Core monitoring proposed in the context of the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program ....................................................................................................... 19

Figure 4. Conceptual diagram of linkages between various resource categories, 

monitoring data, and potential management actions ......................................................................... 22

Figure 5. An outward-looking matrix for the aquatic food web ...................................................... 23 

Figure 6. Overview of natural, sociocultural, and recreational resources that are 

influenced by the operation of Glen Canyon Dam............................................................................ 32

Figure 7. Monthly and quarterly survey locations for quality of water monitoring

in Lake Powell .................................................................................................................................. 67

Figure 8. Location map showing streamflow, non-sediment quality of water and 

suspended-sediment transport data collection sites and fine sediment budget reaches .................... 68

Figure 9. Conceptual plot showing how long-term trends in sand storage detected by the SedTrend 

monitoring program will inform management for sandbars. ............................................................ 37 

Figure 10. A conceptual model of river recreation to guide monitoring .......................................... 75 

Figure 11. Data management roles and responsibilities overview ................................................... 92

Figure 12. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

program’s electronic data repository workflow ................................................................................ 97 

vi 
vii 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

List of Tables 

Table 1. The goals of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. ............................................ 3

Table 2. Proposed schedule for core monitoring program development. .................................................. 33

Table 3. Programmatic approach used by GCMRC to guide development and implementation of the core 

Monitoring Program for the GCDAMP (After Palmer and Landis, 2002; Turner and others, 2009). ........ 34

Table 4. Summary breakdown of annual estimated costs (direct and indirect) for each core monitoring 

project. ........................................................................................................................................................ 40

Table 5. Summary of proposed focus, scope, and parameters for core monitoring (to be determined more 

precisely after completing core monitoring information workshops and a final protocol evaluation panel 

[PEP] technical review) by Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ...................................... 44

Table 6. Metrics and frequency of data collection for power costs. MW = megawatt, MWH = megawatt 

hour; SCADA = Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system, and WAPA = Western Area Power 

Administration. ........................................................................................................................................... 89
1 Chapter 1. Introduction to the Core Monitoring Plan 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

Establishment and implementation of a long-term monitoring program has been identified by the Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) as a critical program need since the inception of the 

program in 1996. Since then, the focus has been on the development of a “core” monitoring program to 

meet the environmental and monitoring commitments of the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision (ROD) and comply with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992.

The GCDAMP Strategic Plan (GCDAMP, 2003) defines core monitoring as follows: 

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.

This document describes a general plan and framework for the development of a core monitoring program 

for the GCDAMP during federal fiscal years 2010 through 2015. Detailed core monitoring plans with 

explicit methodologies for each resource category will be developed as outlined in this plan over the next 

several years. The proposed process is consistent with the strategies and objectives described in the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s (GCMRC) Monitoring and Research Plan (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2007), and the GCDAMP Strategic Plan as amended by the Adaptive Management Work Group 

at their August 2003 meeting (AMWG written comm., 2003, hereafter cited as GCDAMP, 2003).

Monitoring is a fundamental requirement of the adaptive management process (Walters, 1986; Walters 

and Holling, 1990). The Department of the Interior (DOI) Adaptive Management Technical Guide 

(Williams and others, 2007) identifies four primary purposes for monitoring within an adaptive 

management program: 

1. To evaluate progress towards achieving management objectives 

2. To determine resource status in order to identify appropriate management action 

3. To increase understanding of resource dynamics via the comparison of predictions against field 

observations 

4. To enhance and develop models of resource dynamics as needed 

In 1995, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) was created to fulfill the mandate 

in the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act for the 

establishment and implementation of a long-term monitoring and research program to 

ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated in a manner that protects the values for which 

the Grand Canyon National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were 

created. 

Since its inception, many of the GCMRC activities have focused on continuing certain monitoring tasks 

previously established under the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies program (termed here as “Legacy” 

1 
monitoring), conducting field experiments, and developing technologies in support of development of a 

core monitoring program. Implementation of a long-term core monitoring program will require a 

significant commitment of qualified personnel to ensure that the program is implemented in a sustainable 

and timely manner. With a few exceptions, much of the data collection is proposed to be performed by 

cooperating agencies and contractors as discussed below; however, some monitoring, such as quality of 

water and sediment monitoring that has historically been part of the USGS mission, is proposed to 

continue internal to the GCMRC and the Water Resources Discipline within USGS. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the General Core Monitoring Plan 

The Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) describes a four-step process for defining and refining core 

monitoring projects associated with various GCDAMP goals and key resources based on the best 

currently available information. As described in the MRP, the four steps are (1) develop a general core 

monitoring plan, (2) conduct information needs workshops with the Technical Work Group (TWG) in 

advance of convening independent protocol evaluation panel (PEP) reviews, (3) conduct PEPs for each 

resource goal, and (4) prepare final core monitoring program reports for each resource goal. 

This general Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) is the first step in this four-step process of implementing the 

Core Monitoring Program for the GCDAMP. The CMP identifies the general goals, objectives, scope, 

schedule, and funding level for each proposed core monitoring project. The CMP is based on the 

currently identified information needs defined by AMWG in the 2003 Strategic Plan. This Plan takes into 

account the feasibility of developing monitoring protocols to meet those needs and includes a flexible 

approach for incorporating risk assessments and trade-off analyses to support decision making related to 

the scope and elements of the monitoring programs. The CMP also identifies the process and strategies 

which will be used to develop and finalize individual core monitoring program plans. 

Development and implementation of the core monitoring program for the GCDAMP will consume a large 

percentage of the current GCDAMP science budget based on the information needs identified by the 

GCDAMP. The CMP includes initial estimates for costs and timeframes for program implementation but 

recognizes that a practical decision-making process will be needed by TWG to decide on a core 

monitoring program that meets stakeholder needs within available budget constraints. 

1.2 Legislation, Statutes, Policy, and Strategic Planning 

The Colorado River is managed and operated under numerous compacts, federal and state laws, court 

decisions and decrees, contracts, treaties, and regulatory guidelines, collectively known as the Law of the 

River. This collection of documents apportions the water among the seven Colorado River basin states 

and Mexico, and regulates the flows of the Colorado River (Adler, 2007) 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center were established in 1996–97 to meet the environmental and monitoring commitments identified in 

the Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; U.S. Department of Interior, 1995) 

and Record of Decision (ROD) (Department of the Interior, 1996), and to comply with the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act (GCPA) of 1992. Specifically, the GCMRC was created to fulfill the GCPA mandate for 

the “establishment and implementation of a long-term monitoring and research program to ensure that 

Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) is operated in a manner that protects the values for which Grand Canyon 

2 
National Park (GRCA) and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GLCA) were created.” This 

program includes necessary research and monitoring to determine the effects of dam management on the 

natural, recreational, and cultural resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

As mandated by the GCPA and described in the 1995 EIS, the Secretary consults with stakeholders 

through their participation in the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) group comprising representatives of the seven Colorado River basin states 

(Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), six Native American tribes 

(Hopi, Hualapai, Navajo, Kaibab Southern Paiutes, Southern Piute Tribes of Utah, and Pueblo of Zuni), 

two power user groups, two environmental groups, two recreation groups, and five federal agencies 

(Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and Western Area Power Administration. These same entities participate at a technical level in the TWG, 

which formulates recommendations about research and monitoring for consideration by the AMWG. 

The GCPA allows for management actions, in addition to dam operations, to accomplish the intent of 

protecting the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

were established. Examples of management actions may include water temperature modification, 

nonnative fish control, stabilization of historic properties, and removal of nonnative vegetation. When 

such actions are taken, research and monitoring are necessary to assess the effectiveness of these actions 

in achieving the intent of the GCPA. 

Establishment and implementation of a long-term monitoring program has been identified by the 

GCDAMP as a critical program need since the inception of the program in 1996. Since then, the focus has 

been on the development of a “core” monitoring program, “to measure status and trends of key resources

to answer specific questions” (GCDAMP 2003). 

In a broad sense, the GCPA identifies key resources as the “natural, recreational, and cultural resources of 

Grand Canyon National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area” that are affected by GCD 

operations. This general mandate has been further refined by the GCDAMP (2003) to include 11 resource 

goals and 1 programmatic goal, as listed in Table 1 below: 

Table 1. The goals of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.

GOAL RESOURCE GOALS 

1. Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations of desired 

species at higher trophic levels. 

2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove jeopardy from 

humpback chub (Gila cypha) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and prevent 

adverse modification to their critical habitat. 

3. Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable. 

4.. Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) above 

the Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable 

populations of native fish. 

5. Maintain or attain viable populations of the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni 

kanabensis). 

6. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including threatened and 

endangered species and their critical habitat. 

7. Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the Adaptive 

3 
GOAL RESOURCE GOALS 

Management Program ecosystem goals. 

8. Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines 

to achieve the Adaptive Management Program ecosystem goals. 

9. Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 

ecosystem, within the framework of the Adaptive Management Program ecosystem goals. 

10. Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible 

and advisable, within the framework of the Adaptive Management Program ecosystem 

goals. 

11. Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of 

past, present, and future generations. 

PROGRAMMATIC GOAL 

12. Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

This general core monitoring plan assumes that the “core” purpose of the GCDAMP monitoring program 

is to measure the status and trends of these key resources potentially affected by GCD operations and 

assess whether the trends are consistent with GCDAMP goals. However, monitoring is also necessary to 

ensure compliance with other environmental statutes, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Therefore, the GCDAMP core monitoring program is 

intended to meet the requirements of the GCPA while also supporting requirements for monitoring to 

meet other relevant environmental compliance mandates associated with federally listed endangered 

species and federally managed and register-eligible historic properties that occur within the Colorado 

River ecosystem (CRE). 

1.3 Boundary and Definition of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

The GCDAMP Strategic Plan (2003) defines the geographic scope of the adaptive management program 

as “the Colorado River mainstem corridor and interacting resources in associated riparian and terrace 

zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon 

National Park” (fig. 1). This definition effectively constrains the scope of the GCDAMP monitoring 

activities. Factors such as climate change or changes in resource conditions outside the immediate scope 

of the GCDAMP are assumed to be outside the purview of the core monitoring program. 

4 
1 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

Geographic Scope

 

A map of the Colorado River ecosystem from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area

1.4 History of Monitoring the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam1 

Management of the Colorado River requires efficient, effective monitoring of ecosystem resources and 

processes; however, establishing priorities for key resources and selection of appropriate monitoring 

parameters has proven to be a difficult process. Selection of appropriate monitoring variables has been 

hampered in the past by challenging logistics and a poor understanding of how rivers constrained in a 

bedrock channel, as opposed to alluvial rivers, function ecologically (Schmidt and others, 1998), limited 

data on many biological resources (Stevens, 1989), limited synthesis of data, poor understanding of 

monitoring as a scientific process, and inconsistent science administration, including information 

management. In this section, we document the history of efforts to understand what to monitor and how to 

monitor the resources and physical processes of the Colorado River from lower Lake Powell through 

Grand Canyon. 

1 This history of monitoring of the CRE below Glen Canyon Dam is based on a 2004 briefing document prepared for the 

GCDAMP by Dr. Lawrence E. Stevens of the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Flagstaff, Ariz., titled, “A Brief History of 

Monitoring the Colorado River Ecosystem.”

5 
1 1.4.1 Pre-GCES Era (1921–82) 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

The earliest monitoring undertaken in the Colorado River ecosystem consisted of streamflow 

measurements made by the U.S. Geological Survey at Lees Ferry, starting in May 1921. In 1929, the 

USGS started collecting suspended sediment samples at that site as well and conducted similar 

measurements at a second stream gage near Phantom Ranch. Monitoring was conducted by USGS 

technicians on a daily basis at the Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon streamflow gages (river miles, RM 0 and 

87, respectively) from the 1920s until the fall of 1972, when the daily suspended sediment sampling was 

discontinued. 

Environmental management and monitoring of the river corridor in Grand Canyon has historically been 

stimulated by recreation concerns. Owing to dramatic increases in river running and poor waste 

management practices in the 1960s, the National Park Service implemented an ecological inventory of the 

river corridor from 1973 to 1977 (Carothers and Aitchison, 1976; Carothers and others, 1979); this was 

the first comprehensive inventory of the river ecosystem. A primary component of this work initially was 

to inventory all campsites in the river corridor and assess their condition (Weeden and others, 1975). 

Through this initial inventory work and subsequent research efforts, numerous environmental issues that 

are recognized as problems today were identified, and groundwork for much of the subsequent river 

corridor science was established. Issues identified by Carothers and Aitchison (1976) included (1) 

identification of the significance of dam impacts on the riparian corridor (see also Turner and Karpiscak’s 

[1980] photo-rematching efforts), (2) human waste management (Carothers and others, 1979), (3) 

monitoring camping beach erosion rates (see also Howard and Dolan, 1981), (4) nonnative burro damage 

to the riparian zone, (5) the need for an ongoing biological inventory program (see also Stevens, 1976; 

Ruffner and others, 1978; Sutkus and others, 1978; Carothers and others, 1979; Brown and others, 1987; 

Phillips and others, 1987), (6) endangerment of native fish, and (7) Pogonomyrmex ant infestation and 

sand discoloration of beaches in the absence of flooding. In a final phase of the inventory project, Phillips 

and others (1977) produced a riparian vegetation map of the river corridor. Calibration of that map could 

have established total riparian habitat area; however, further analysis of the map was not pursued. 

Early monitoring and research efforts anticipated many issues that continue to be central concerns for 

National Park managers and that have a prominent role in the GCDAMP today. The initiation of fish 

monitoring arose from the original recognition by Miller (1946) of the endangered status of Colorado 

River fish, several of which were federally protected before the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was 

passed. The work of Carothers and Minckley (1981) set the stage for monitoring humpback chub 

spawning, which has been further refined and continues to the present. The recreational research of 

Shelby (1976) and his colleagues demonstrated significant impacts of boat types and crowding on visitor 

experience, laying the groundwork for subsequent National Park Service recreational management and 

monitoring programs. Also, Silverstein and Laursen (1976) identified the potential for erosion and 

worsening of rapids through debris flows. Collectively, these early research projects identified key river 

corridor management problems, presented baseline data, and helped solve several vexing environmental 

problems (see specifically issues 2 and 4, above).

1.4.2 Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Era (1982–96) 

Although the National Park Service’s 1973–77 ecological inventory work provided a more refined 

understanding of the ecological structure of the river corridor, subsequent National Park Service 

6 
management focused more broadly on resources and recreational issues. This brought about an 

understanding that the issues involving river flow rates caused by Glen Canyon Dam management were 

beyond the scope of National Park Service jurisdiction. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

In 1980, a strong public outcry was provoked by the Bureau of Reclamation Finding of No Significant 

Impact for rewinding Glen Canyon Dam’s hydroelectric generators and increasing diurnal flow 

fluctuations. In response to that public concern, then Secretary of the Interior James Watt initiated the 

1982–97 Glen Canyon Environmental Studies program (GCES). Phase I of the GCES (1983–87) 

produced more than 40 research studies, and Phase II resulted in nearly 100 studies. These research 

efforts identified virtually all of the contemporary issues related to river and dam management (Stevens 

and Gold, 2003). 

The National Research Council (NRC) conducted independent reviews of the GCES program, producing 

several important syntheses and program critiques (NRC 1987, 1991, 1996). Their 1991 synthesis was 

particularly important for bringing together the state of knowledge on the system for the impending EIS. 

Walters and others (2000) observed that the GCES studies were primarily research and not monitoring, 

and they further observed that monitoring is critical for informing long-term adaptive management of the 

river. The need for planning a long-term monitoring program for this river ecosystem was recognized and 

highlighted during the GCES Phase II and its National Academy of Sciences review (NRC 1996). 

National Academy of Sciences Monitoring Symposium (1992) 

Much of the present adaptive management monitoring program for the Colorado River is directly or 

indirectly derived from the Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of Interior, 1995) and 

Record of Decision (U.S. Department of Interior, 1996), but most of the monitoring guidance therein is 

derived from a 1992 NAS (National Academy of Sciences) symposium on long-term monitoring of the 

Colorado River (National Research Council, 1992). The NAS assisted the GCES in conducting a 2-day 

symposium following the Delphi format in Irvine, CA, bringing together leading experts on many aspects 

of ecosystem monitoring, river ecology, and Grand Canyon studies. The symposium, which was overseen 

by William Lewis, emphasized interactions between disciplines as well as integration of information. The 

meeting was organized around four disciplines found to be important by the NAS: geohydrology, 

environmental chemistry and biology, sociocultural resources (power generation, nonuse values, and 

cultural values), and information management. Gary E. Davis and L.H. MacDonald presented position 

papers on ecosystem monitoring objectives and practices from the perspectives of the National Park 

Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, respectively. Both emphasized that monitoring is a 

scientific process, based on adequate inventory, clearly defined management goals and objectives, and 

with appropriate reporting and information management. Geohydrological monitoring issues focused on 

climate, mainstream sediment transport, sediment resources, and tributary processes. Biological-chemical 

monitoring and research issues included native fish, trout and water temperature, the aquatic food base, 

riparian and endangered terrestrial resources and linkages, and air pollution. Sociocultural position papers 

were presented on cultural resource monitoring, recreation, and power economics. Information 

management issues that were addressed included program development, GIS applications, and Lake 

Powell. The 1992 symposium also endeavored to integrate these monitoring topics with break-out groups. 

Although the 1992 symposium was regarded as a success by the participants, the results of the 

symposium proved difficult to incorporate into a coherent monitoring program for use in the 1995 final 

EIS. Duncan Patten (GCES senior scientist) cited several challenges to developing a monitoring program 

7 
for the EIS: a lack of political agreement on relationships among variables, a lack of political consensus 

on program directions, and a lack of clearly defined desired future resource conditions. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

GCES Era Monitoring Efforts 

At about the same time that the NAS reviews were in progress, researchers and cooperators working for 

the GCES began acquiring data and testing various protocols in anticipation of developing future 

monitoring programs for aquatic and terrestrial resources. Initial efforts focused primarily on acquiring 

baseline inventory data about the resources of concern, such as archaeological sites and native fishes (for 

example, Fairley and others, 1994; Valdez and Ryel, 1995). Particularly with regard to fishes, this 

baseline data revealed longitudinal patterns in fish distribution, and was subsequently used to structure 

initial monitoring efforts. In addition, some effort was also directed toward pilot monitoring programs 

during the GCES era. For example, L.E. Stevens and numerous academic colleagues initiated new 

monitoring programs for several natural resources in the river corridor in 1989–90, including aquatic food 

base, avian studies (general and endangered species), sandbar erosion, and riparian resources. These 

monitoring programs were based on several premises, as described below: 

1. Given that these were initial monitoring programs, it was anticipated that the early data would 

serve as a baseline and that the protocols would need reconsideration. Therefore, a synthesis and 

critical review were conducted early in each program, and baseline findings were published in 

various reports and peer-reviewed journals (Beus and others, 1992; Brown and Stevens, 1992, 

1997; Brown and others, 1989, 1994, 1998; Stevens and others, 1995, 1997a, 1997c; Sublette and 

others, 1998). 

2. Variation in the distribution of ecological resources and processes was strongly influenced by 

local and reach-based variation among the geomorphic settings, with debris-fan complexes and 

reaches of the river identified by Schmidt and Graf (1990) and Stevens and others (1995, 1997a, 

1997c), along with dramatic downstream variation in aquatic productivity associated with the 

clear tailwaters below GCD giving way to progressively more turbid, less productive, and 

somewhat warmer waters far downstream. Site selection typically involved a stratified random 

sample selected from the overall population of available study sites, but included some sites (for 

example, sandbars) that had an extensive history of study. Several sites were selected in each 

reach, and response variables (sandbar area or volume, standing mass, or riparian vegetation 

cover and diversity) were measured on a regular (annual or more often) basis for the first several 

years. Subsequent syntheses of monitoring data provided clarification of the timing of 

measurements. 

3. It was recognized that developing aerial mapping technologies and GIS held great promise, so 

analyses of aerial data (for example, sandbar distribution, backwaters, riparian, and upland 

vegetation) were initiated or explored to determine the value of such data, and accuracy of 

interpretation (Schmidt and others, 2004). 

4. The initial monitoring studies emphasized the need for understanding dam impacts in relation to 

reference sites. Monitoring is a scientific endeavor, in which data from reference sites or controls 

are needed to distinguish ecosystem effects related to dam operations from, for example, climate 

effects. However, the issue of scientific controls has rarely been addressed by GCDAMP studies 

because early on the GCDAMP leadership decided that only field work geographically 

constrained to Grand Canyon would be recommended for funding. 

8 
The decision of the GCDAMP leadership that research and monitoring conducted by GCMRC will be 

geographically constrained to the Colorado River and limited tributary reaches within Grand Canyon 

places limits on the amount of learning that can be gained from comparison to controls. For example, 

Cataract Canyon in Canyonlands National Park (a much less regulated reach of the Colorado River 

upstream from Lake Powell) has many characteristics of free-flowing Western rivers, including high 

spring flows, enormous sediment loads, and seasonally warm water. Some AMWG members have 

expressed the desire to mimic these characteristics in Grand Canyon. However, the native fish 

populations in that reach appear to be in poor condition, although there are logistical limits on sampling 

there. A serious examination of control site data could greatly alter and potentially enhance future 

program directions in Grand Canyon. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

The GCES riparian vegetation monitoring program focused on analysis of randomly selected plots 

stratified by river reach and associated with large debris fan/eddy complexes. Control plots were 

established in tributaries well beyond the influence of the Colorado River. These vegetation study sites 

were also selected for sandbar erosion studies. The sandbar studies focused on the area and volume of 

sand stored in an eddy, sandbar history through analysis of aerial photographs, the mechanisms of erosion 

(seepage erosion, hydraulic aggradation and degradation, wave action, wind action, and trampling), and 

responses of sandbars to initial EIS related experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam during 1990–

91. This monitoring program also recognized that vegetation data on whole debris fan/eddy complexes 

were needed for habitat analysis for terrestrial fauna. Therefore, these debris fan/eddy complexes with 

study plots and sandbar erosion data were also used to initiate a vegetation mapping project using true 

color aerial photographs. In addition to plot analyses, this program involved random stops to evaluate 

nonnative plant invasions (Stevens and others, 2001; Stevens and Ayers, 2002). 

Other biological monitoring programs initiated or carried out in the GCES Phase II era (1989–95) 

included several avian and endangered species monitoring efforts. Brown and Stevens started a bald eagle 

monitoring program in 1988 that carried forward into the mid-1990s (Brown and others, 1989, 1998; 

Brown and Stevens, 1992, 1997). Sogge and colleagues developed and tested monitoring protocols for 

southwestern willow flycatchers (Empidonax trailii extimus; Sogge and others, 1997). Yard developed 

methods for assessing riparian bird diets (Yard and others, 2004), but those approaches have not been 

used in recent years. 

Stevens and colleagues developed a census technique for monitoring waterbirds throughout the river 

corridor (Stevens and others, 1997a), compiling waterbird information from pre-dam river runner diaries, 

and drawing together 21 years of post-dam waterbird observation data that provided detailed insights into 

the positive impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on waterbird diversity and distribution; however, key questions 

about habitat use and visitor impacts on waterbird movement remain unanswered. 

Meretsky, Stevens, and others developed small-plot monitoring protocols for the Kanab ambersnail 

(Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) during1994–97 (Meretsky and Stevens, 2000; Meretsky and others, 2000.) 

Those techniques have been used by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to monitor snails at Vaseys 

Paradise and at a successful second population establishment site downstream in Elves Chasm. 

Lake Powell water quality data have been collected since the 1970s, especially temperature, pH, specific 

conductance, and dissolved oxygen, as well as some data on plankton distributions and concentrations. 

Some of the resulting data have been synthesized, peer-reviewed, and published, most notably by Hueftle 

and Stevens (2001) and more recently by Vernieu and others (2005). 

9 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Monitoring and assessment of archaeological and historical cultural sites by the National Park Service 

started in the late 1970s and continued, using a variety of forms and protocols, through the 1980s and 

early1990s. In 1993, the National Park Service implemented a monitoring program for archaeological 

sites that focused on documenting the presence of impacts from visitor use and erosion. 

Tribal involvement with monitoring cultural resources in the CRE increased dramatically as a result of 

Native American involvement in the preparation of the Glen Canyon Dam EIS in the early 1990s. 

Recognition of the importance of traditional cultural properties and ethnobiology resulted in a flurry of 

cultural research for the 1995 final EIS (U.S. Department of Interior, 1995), and an ongoing tribal 

participation process. After completion of the EIS, several of the tribes developed proposals for 

monitoring resources of tribal concern; these proposals were implemented to various degrees as 

compliance monitoring activities tied to the National Historic Preservation Act Programmatic Agreement 

for Cultural Resources. 

Several inventories of campsites in the CRE were conducted during the GCES era by Brian and Thomas 

(1984), Kearsley and Warren (1993), and Kearsley and Quartaroli (1997). Some aspects of recreational 

experience monitoring initiated by Shelby (1976) and his colleagues in the 1970s were carried forward by 

Brown and Hahn-O’Neill (1987). Recreation economics data and power generation data were compiled 

for the EIS, but little synthesis was accomplished, except in relation to impacts from individual flow 

experiments (Harpman, 1999). Nonuse value monitoring has not been pursued following work 

programmed under the GCES (Loomis and others, 2005a).

1.4.3 GCMRC Era (1997–present) 

Following completion of the Operations of Glen Canyon Dam Final EIS in 1995, the DOI established the 

GCMRC in Flagstaff, Arizona. One of the primary objectives of the GCMRC is to provide long-term 

monitoring data on the status and trends of CRE resources below the dam. These data were intended for 

use by managers to evaluate the effectiveness of approved alternative dam operations (preferred 

alternative of the final EIS) relative to resource objectives identified within the EIS (see Lovich and 

Melis, 2007, for a summary and update on status and trends of all resources). 

The draft final EIS contained a draft monitoring plan for resources below Glen Canyon Dam as an 

appendix (referred to here as the Patten plan). This plan was developed by GCES Senior Scientist Duncan 

Patten during the EIS period, in collaboration with many cooperators between 1990 and 1993. The Patten 

plan was reviewed by a National Academy of Sciences review committee in 1994 (National Research 

Council, 1994); this review recommended further development of the plan before implementation 

(including cost estimates for each monitoring element), but the requested revisions were never completed.

Initiation of the Protocol Evaluation Panel Process to Review and Refine Monitoring Protocols 

In 1996, one of the first tasks undertaken by the GCMRC was to evaluate all previous science activities 

relative to perceived or documented long-term monitoring needs. The GCMRC proposed that previous or 

ongoing monitoring activities initiated by the GCES and carried forward in the GCMRC era would be 

evaluated jointly by cooperators, staff, and external peer reviewers through a process termed the Protocol 

Evaluation Panel (PEP) review. The PEPs would be conducted through a series of meetings and 

workshops that focused on monitoring methods specific to each of the resource areas of concern, as 

10 
defined in the 1995 EIS. Final reports from the PEPs would include recommendations for additional 

research and development, as needed to fully identify appropriate monitoring protocols for long-term 

implementation. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

The first PEP review meetings were convened in the late 1990s to evaluate historically conducted remote 

sensing (analog air photography missions and associated change detection and mapping) and physical 

resource (primarily flow and sediment) measurements and modeling research. Following PEP meetings 

conducted in 1998–99 on physical resources (1999) and remote sensing (1998), additional reviews were 

conducted by the GCMRC on the terrestrial ecosystem (1999), aquatic ecosystem (fishes and aquatic food 

web [2000]), cultural resources (2000), Lake Powell and integrated quality of water (2001), survey 

control procedures (2002), and recreation (2005). With the exception of a PEP review in the area of 

economics, initial PEP reviews were completed for all resource areas by 2006. 

In response to initial PEP reviews, new research in areas of monitoring development began in 2000 

(remote sensing initiative, terrestrial, physical and modeling, etc.) and continues to the present (2010) 

with aquatic food web research and other projects derived from the various PEP review 

recommendations. The remote sensing initiative final report was completed in 2003. Sediment research 

toward monitoring began in 2001 and a final sediment monitoring PEP report was completed in 2006. 

Research aimed at terrestrial ecosystem monitoring began in 2001, and the final PEP review on both 

native and nonnative species was conducted in 2007. Research and development in the area of native 

fishery monitoring in both the main channel of the CRE and its tributaries began in 2000; the final 

fisheries (native and nonnative) PEP was completed in May 2009. Development of monitoring protocols 

in the areas of cultural and aquatic food web resources are currently the focus of research initiatives 

ongoing since 2005. Lacking any monitoring programs for socioeconomics, a formal PEP review for 

economics has yet to be convened, but a workshop conducted in December 2009 resulted in the 

development of a multi-year plan for developing future socioeconomic research and monitoring projects.

Development of Conceptual Ecosystem Model to Enhance Monitoring 

One challenge following completion of the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) was to identify and implement monitoring efforts that would produce scientific 

data suitable for evaluating the new operating policy at Glen Canyon Dam. At that time, there was also a 

sense among managers and scientists that additional, comprehensive syntheses of available data needed to 

be undertaken with respect to major resource categories, such as sediment and fisheries. In addition, the 

need for development of a conceptual model for the CRE, consistent with the adaptive environmental 

assessment and management process, was identified by the USGS GCMRC and its cooperators. 

This modeling effort began in 1998 and continued concurrently with the establishment of the AMWG and 

the development of the group’s strategic goals for the CRE (1998–2002). There were three key objectives 

for the conceptual modeling exercise: 

1. Conduct an exhaustive knowledge assessment of the various elements of the ecosystem on the basis 

of existing data and hypotheses posed in the EIS (and within the context of workshops that supported 

stakeholder and scientist interactions). 

2. Identify, through modeling and simulation, data or knowledge gaps that were impediments to 

developing realistic simulations. 

11 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

3. Identify future research directives (both experimental and otherwise) that would effectively fill 

knowledge gaps in the program related to management needs. 

Development of the physical elements of the model (the conceptual Grand Canyon Ecosystem Model or 

GCEM) proceeded relatively quickly, mostly because there were abundant data in some key areas 

(hydrology, sediment, and river flow) and an operational model for the Colorado River Basin 

(RiverWareTM) had already been developed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Other critical areas of the 

model development, however, were limited by the paucity of available data related to biology and 

sociocultural resource areas (Walters and others, 2000). 

By 2000, it was clear that certain critical modules of the model could not even reliably predict the general 

direction of ecosystem resource responses to potential treatments of management actions, such as the 

response of native fishes to warmer water conditions through implementation of a proposed temperature 

control device. Although water could be routed through the ecosystem with confidence, there was 

considerably less confidence about the longer term relationship of flows to fine-sediment flux and 

sandbars. The inability of the GCM to accurately simulate higher level trophic (for example, fish) 

responses in critical areas was also a cause for concern among managers. Some progress has been made in 

recent years on improving modeling capabilities, but our existing modeling capabilities continue to fall 

short of being able to accurately predict experimental outcomes and require further work before they can 

serve as reliable tools to inform policy decisions. 

The largest contribution made by the conceptual modeling project was the identification of various 

experimental flow and nonflow treatments that needed to be tested to provide managers with scientifically 

based options for most effectively meeting the proposed management goals. Experimentation has long 

been identified as a sign of “active” adaptive management and has been shown to be an efficient means of 

resolving the uncertainty associated with various alternative management policies (Walters and Holling, 

1990). Simultaneously, the modeling project helped identify additional monitoring data that would be 

required to more fully evaluate the influence of the modified low fluctuating flow policy on downstream 

resources of concern. Although evaluation of all the resources outlined in the EIS has not been possible 

because of program funding limitations, the GCM has identified the general linkages between the various 

resources as related to dam operation. The experimental designs proposed and implemented in the 

GCDAMP have been a direct and logical outcome of conceptual modeling activities. Although still not 

complete, the experimental results to date have greatly advanced ecosystem understanding. Ultimately, 

the knowledge gained through these scientific activities in the CRE should lead to improved management 

options for GCD. 

Development of a Long-Term Core Monitoring Plan 

The need for a long-term core monitoring plan for the GCDAMP was identified as a critical program need 

by GCMRC managers and stakeholders at the inception of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program. Despite the recognition that such a plan was essential for the program to function effectively, 

completion of a long-term core monitoring plan has been an elusive goal for a variety of reasons. One 

important factor was a decision made at the outset of GCMRC’s inception to undertake a systematic 

development of monitoring programs that involved the establishment of protocol evaluation panels for 

each key resource area, followed by 4–5 years of piloting monitoring protocols, then a period of analysis, 

synthesis, and revaluation, culminating in the implementation of long-term monitoring protocols. This 

12 
process, which requires 4–5 years of research and development (R&D) for each key resource, got 

underway in 1998, starting with the physical science program, and is still in progress for some elements 

of the program (for example archaeological and tribal resources, aquatic food base, recreation, and 

socioeconomics). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

Other factors that have hindered rapid progress in the development of a core monitoring plan are (1) lack 

of agreement among AMP stakeholders about the purposes and objectives of monitoring in general, (2) 

lack of agreement among AMP stakeholders and scientists about what should be included within a core 

monitoring plan (that is, what defines core monitoring as opposed to other kinds of monitoring, such as 

monitoring effects of experimental actions or monitoring of specific management actions), and (3) lack of 

agreement about what levels of precision and accuracy in monitoring data are necessary to achieve 

program goals. The goal of this current plan is to outline a scientific process to support GCDAMP 

decision-making to overcome these obstacles. 

In addition to the creation of the PEP process, GCMRC initiated several planning efforts in subsequent 

years in an attempt to make progress towards development of a sound core monitoring plan for the 

GCDAMP. These initiatives included a multi-attribute trade-off analysis workshop in winter 2003 and an 

in-depth knowledge assessment workshop in July 2005. The Adaptive Management Program stakeholders 

also attempted to define their highest priority research and monitoring information needs by participating 

in a priority-setting workshop in 2004. In addition to these short-term initiatives, there was a major 

planning effort, led by GCMRC in collaboration with the Core Monitoring Team (CMT), an ad hoc group 

of the TWG, that tried to define a comprehensive long-term monitoring plan, and a second effort by an 

AMWG ad hoc committee known as the Science Planning Group (SPG), that tried to develop a long-term 

experimental plan. Both of these planning efforts fell short of their intended objectives, but each one 

made substantial contributions towards refining the scope and direction of a future monitoring plan, as 

described below. 

Initial Attempts at Developing a Core Monitoring Plan, 2004–05: In March 2004, a core monitoring 

ad hoc committee composed of members of the TWG and GCMRC staff was convened by a decision of 

the AMWG. This group of individuals, referred to as the Core Monitoring Team (CMT), represented a 

cross-section of GCDAMP resource management concerns and scientific disciplines. It was envisioned by 

AMWG that the CMP would be developed collaboratively by this team. GCMRC would retain primary 

authorship of the CMP, while other members of the AMP would contribute sections. 

Although the CMT strived for a minimalist strategy, this goal went largely unrealized. The CMT decided 

that the following resource categories of concern would be covered in the CMP: (1) sediment; (2) 

wildlife/vegetation; (3) fish; (4) food base; (5) register eligible historic properties; (6) other cultural 

resources of tribal concern; (7) hydrology; (8) water quality; (9) recreation; (10) threatened and 

endangered species; (11) power; and (12) non-native species. The CMT affirmed the importance of 

relating monitoring activities to questions arising out of the AMP strategic plan. Relevant fundamental 

questions included the following: (1) What and why do managers need to know? (2) Where do they want 

to know it? (3) How frequently do they need to know? (4) What are the general methods to obtain this 

information? (5) What is the level of precision/accuracy needed? (6) How will the monitoring data be 

presented? (7) Is it answering the managers’ questions?, and (8) What are the metrics of success, and how 

is success defined? 

13 
During the September 2004, meeting of the CMT it was decided that monitoring activities for which a 

methodology still needed to be developed should not be handled the same way as projects that were 

already underway. Therefore, it was proposed and accepted by consensus of the CMT that the proposed 

monitoring activities would be classified as either “green,” “yellow,” or “red” depending on where they 

fit within the development cycle. Green projects were existing monitoring projects that had been 

evaluated by a PEP and implemented for one to several years using methods deemed adequate for longterm monitoring. Yellow projects had undergone a PEP review and were scheduled for completion and 

external peer review in the near future (FY05 or FY06). Red projects were still under development and 

needed a PEP evaluation in FY 2005 and beyond. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

Incorporating the input from the CMT, a third draft of the CMP was distributed to the TWG on 

September 24, 2004, and was discussed at the March 10–11, 2005 meeting of the CMT. During this 

meeting, it was decided that monitoring activities that were still under development should not be 

included in the core monitoring plan, but should be included in a research plan. Therefore, the CMT 

members decided that all “yellow” and “red” projects would be removed from the CMP and placed in a 

yet to be developed research plan. A second outcome of this meeting was the recognition that even 

“green” projects still required refinement with respect to clear linkages to AMP goals, management 

objectives (MOs), information needs (INs), and compliance mandates, and also with respect to issues of 

data quality, accessibility, and analysis. 

In March, 2005CMT subcommittee members decided that a complete revision of the current CMP was 

impractical within the timeframes allowed in the current development schedule and that a provisional 

plan would have to suffice for 2005–06. Therefore, a fourth draft of the CMP, this time composed only of 

the “green projects,” was prepared in April, 2005. At the April 11–12, 2005, CMT meeting, some CMT 

members expressed the opinion that the existing draft plan was fundamentally flawed in both format and 

content. Criticisms included the following: 

1. The plan did not provide the level of detail desired by AMP members. 

2. The plan lacked information on the accuracy, precision, and frequency needed to ascertain change 

over time. 

3. The plan did not provide an ecosystem perspective. 

4. The plan was not integrated between scientific disciplines. 

5. There was continuing debate over what is core monitoring vs. other kinds of monitoring. 

6. There was disagreement over whether yellow and red projects should be part of the plan or part of a 

different plan. 

7. The plan did not provide enough detail as to how monitoring projects addressed AMP goals. 

Some of these issues reflect the concerns of individual stakeholders, and others reflect group consensus. 

For example, the group agreed that the entire CMP needed to be reoriented around AMP goals and the 

data necessary to support those goals, rather than continuing along the path of attempting to evaluate the 

existing GCMRC monitoring program on a project-by-project basis. There was also group consensus that 

the CMP should address at least some aspect of all the resources identified in the AMP goals, excluding 

goals 3 and 12. In addition it was recognized that an essential component of the plan was still missing—

an ecosystem perspective. Furthermore, the CMT determined that the plan was hampered by the lack of a 

clear definition by stakeholders of what core monitoring was trying to achieve within the AMP, including 

fundamental requirements such as how much change in a resource needs to be detected over what period 

14 
of time. There was general agreement that these fundamental issues needed to be resolved through 

additional TWG discussion. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

The CMT subsequently determined that even if existing projects met all the evaluation criteria, budget 

realities would continue to constrain AMP monitoring activities and that therefore, a process needed to be 

developed that further prioritized AMP strategic goals, management objectives, and information needs so 

that rational decisions could be made relative to which monitoring activities would be funded at what 

levels and which ones would receive less funding or none at all. Once the CMT recognized that they 

needed to undertake an entirely new process for evaluating proposed monitoring activities, the group 

decided that GCMRC should complete a provisional plan for FY06 quickly and with minimal additional 

effort so that an entirely new, AMP goal-oriented core monitoring plan could be developed in the future. 

Adaptive Management Work Group Prioritization Workshop, August 2004: Concurrent with the 

initial stages of the core monitoring planning effort, and as one direct outgrowth of it, the AMWG held a 

workshop in August 2004 to develop and prioritize management questions to guide the budget process. 

The workshop resulted in prioritizing a set of stakeholder generated questions . These questions helped to 

define the main resource concerns that the majority of stakeholders felt warranted greater emphasis in 

future research and monitoring programs. The top five AMWG priority questions in 2004 were identified 

as follows: 

AMWG Priority 1: Why are the humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? 

How many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? (GCDAMP Goal 2) 

AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties 

(TCPs), are within the Area of Potential Effect, which should we treat, and how do we best 

protect them? What is the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of 

deterioration? 

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

AMWG Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it?

AMWG Priority 5: What will happen when we test or implement the Temperature Control 

Device (TCD)? How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for management?

The top five AMWG priority questions provided the basis for prioritizing resource concerns through the 

SPG process and prioritizing research and monitoring activities in the FY2007-2012 Monitoring and 

Research Plan that was subsequently recommended by the AMWG and approved by the Secretary of 

Interior in December, 2007.

Tribal Monitoring Workshop, April 2005: GCMRC convened a workshop with tribal stakeholders to 

review existing tribal monitoring approaches and to identify opportunities for integrating tribal 

monitoring programs with other new or ongoing Western science–based monitoring programs, where 

practical and feasible. In the course of this workshop, it became clear that the tribes did not want to 

change their monitoring approaches or rely exclusively on Western scientific methods to evaluate the 

state of the Grand Canyon ecosystem. The tribes maintained that they needed to assess resource 

15 
conditions according to their own cultural beliefs and values, and they felt that their monitoring 

approaches also helped to achieve other important tribal objectives such as connecting youth with elders’ 

traditional knowledge and strengthening their cultural connection with Grand Canyon. The workshop led 

to the development of several short “position” papers, which were later presented to the AMWG and 

discussed in some detail at subsequent TWG meetings. One outcome of these subsequent discussions was 

that the tribes received additional funding from Reclamation to pursue their monitoring projects 

independently from GCMRC. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Knowledge Assessment Workshop (KAW), summer 2005: Concurrent with the initiation of the 

Science Planning Group (see below), GCMRC convened a group of stakeholders and subject experts to 

review the state of current knowledge for each of the key resource categories identified in the AMP 

strategic plan. This assessment was intended to document knowledge about the various experimental 

treatments that had been conducted since operations were first altered in 1991. Specific objectives of the 

knowledge assessment were to (1) evaluate the uncertainties that persist regarding individual resource 

attribute responses of the Colorado River ecosystem to the various management actions (both flow and 

nonflow elements) undertaken as experiments over the last two decades, (2) develop strategic science 

questions that needed to be addressed to further reduce the uncertainties associated with the various flow 

and nonflow treatments, and (3) identify research and monitoring strategies that could be undertaken to 

answer the science questions. 

The 2005 knowledge assessment was conducted within two workshops (May and July 2005), both of 

which promoted information transfer between scientists, as well as focused discussions between scientists 

and managers about past research and monitoring relative to various treatments. This exercise resulted in 

a categorization of the state of existing knowledge into three broad categories: (1) existing knowledge 

about a given resource was sufficient to determine both general trends and to quantify the rate and amount 

of change, (2) knowledge was sufficient to determine general trends, but not to quantify rate or amount of 

change, and (3) knowledge was not sufficient to reliably determine even general trends in 

condition/status. The KAW highlighted crucial gaps in existing monitoring and research programs, 

prompting further analysis and consideration of how to fill those knowledge gaps through future 

monitoring and research efforts. 

Science Planning Group Activities, 2005–06: Termination of the Core Monitoring Team approach to 

developing a core monitoring plan coincided with the initiation of the Science Planning Group (SPG) in 

summer 2005. The primary purpose of the SPG was to develop a long-term experimental plan, but in the 

course of this effort, several activities were undertaken that helped to further the aims of core monitoring 

plan development. Specifically, the SPG revisited, refined, and prioritized the resource goals and core 

monitoring information needs for the program. The results of this prioritization exercise, reflected in 

Appendix A, have been used to guide the development of this current plan. 

The SPG also recognized the need for the GCDAMP to more explicitly define the goals of the AMP and 

the desired future conditions of resources that the program seeks to maintain or enhance. The SPG did not 

succeed in defining specific desired future conditions (a.k.a. “target conditions”) for key resources, but it 

did help to shine a light on this key deficiency in the program—a deficiency that continues to hinder our 

ability to determine whether or not the GCDAMP is achieving its stated goals. 

Development of a Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan, 2006–07: In the winter 

of 2005–06, with the arrival of a new GCMRC chief (the fifth in as many years), GCMRC decided to 

16 
reassess the process being used to develop a core monitoring plan and approach it in a more logical, stepdown fashion. Specifically, GCMRC decided to develop a series of strategic planning documents, starting 

first with a 5-year strategic science plan that explicitly addressed the priority management questions 

identified in the August 2004 AMWG workshop and the strategic science questions that had emerged 

from the 2005 KAW. This was followed by development of a 5-year Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP) that laid out a year-by-year approach for systematically tackling the knowledge gaps and research 

questions identified in the KAW. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

The MRP also laid out a four-step process for developing scientifically robust, peer-reviewed monitoring 

protocols to address each of the resource goals identified in the 2003 AMP Strategic Plan. The first step 

involved the development of a General Core Monitoring Plan to provide a comprehensive overview of the 

information needs, proposed projects, and estimated budget requirements to comprehensively assess the 

status and trends in resource conditions, as proposed in the original AMP strategic plan. This document is 

that general plan, and it completes the first step in the four-step process. 

17 
1 Chapter 2. GCDAMP Monitoring Needs 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Resources in and along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon have experienced profound changes as a 

result of the installation and operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD). Installation of a dam far from the 

river headwaters alters the river’s physical and biological characteristics (Araújo and others, 2009; Rehn, 

2009). In some cases, the river may return to a more natural state with increasing distance from the dam 

(the serial discontinuity concept; see Stanford and Ward, 2001, and references therein); however it is 

highly unlikely that the Colorado River can be restored to an entirely natural, pre-dam condition (Stevens 

and Gold, 2003). The operation of GCD makes the physical and biological components of the Colorado 

River below the dam distinct from less regulated analogs in the region (Stevens and others, 1997a), 

increasing the need to study and monitor the system in order to make informed decisions. The 

maintenance or improvement of natural resources in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon requires 

recognition that (1) profound physical and biological changes have occurred, and (2) maintenance and 

restoration activities are constrained within this altered ecosystem. For example, the sediment resources 

of the current system are limited and will require careful management if goals dependent on sediment 

conservation are to be achieved (Wright and others, 2008b). 

Because the interactions among physical and biological ecosystem elements (Ricklefs, 1993) often lead to 

state changes that are unpredictable from studying the elements in isolation (Odum, 1977; Townsend and 

others, 2008), it is important for GCMRC to pursue monitoring in an ecosystem context. Ecosystem 

monitoring is most effectively pursued by teams of researchers from different backgrounds that are 

focused on developing a better understanding of the ecosystem as a whole (Odum, 1977). Together with 

numerous cooperators, GCMRC provides the diverse multidisciplinary research team needed to study and 

improve our understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem. 

2.1 Monitoring within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Strategic 

Plan Framework 

The GCDAMP has identified 12 diverse resource-oriented goals and associated management objectives to 

guide research and monitoring activities. The resource goals encompass diverse ecosystem components 

that interact at various trophic levels. No single conceptual approach can capture all of the potential 

interrelationships among ecosystem elements; this difficulty is compounded by the diversity of the 

GCDAMP goals and the need to present research and monitoring results to stakeholders with widely 

varying interests. In an effort to present the different goals in as straightforward a manner as possible, 

while also relying on accepted scientific literature definitions, GCMRC distinguishes among the 12 

GCDAMP goals by categorizing them as either resources or ecosystem drivers/stressors (Vinebrooke and 

others, 2004; Lamon and Qian, 2008; Townsend and others, 2008), which may produce either positive or 

negative influences on resources (Chapin and others, 1996). For GCMRC to provide meaningful 

information and recommendations to GCDAMP stakeholders and managers, it is critical to describe how 

the CRE elements enumerated in the goals are interrelated. 

It is practical, and consistent with an ecosystem approach, to consider the goals in a hierarchy (fig. 2), 

envisioned as an inverted pyramid populated with some of the relatively higher trophic level resources at 

the top, deriving energy, nutrients and/or habitats from lower trophic levels farther down the pyramid. 

The goals that are highest in the trophic web are those relating to humans and their cultural values—the 

18 
goals that seek to protect resources reflecting basic human needs and habitat requirements (goals 9, 10, 

and 11) or that seek to protect specific species that Euro-American and traditional Native American 

cultures have deemed to be exceptionally valuable (goals 2, 3, 4, 5, plus specific components of goal 6). 

Laws and policies (for example, the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Grand 

Canyon Protection Act) reinforce cultural values attributed to specific elements of the ecosystem, 

especially cultural resources (goal 11) and endangered native species (goals 2, 3, and 5). Supporting these 

higher levels in the hierarchy are the biological and physical drivers or stressors of the ecosystem such as 

the terrestrial and aquatic food web (goals 1 and 6), sediment (goal 8), and the water resource (goal 7) that 

may or may not provide adequate nutrition and habitat for supporting other elements of the ecosystem. 

Maintaining an active, effective adaptive management program and the data associated with monitoring 

and research (goal 12) supports all of the goals from the apex of the inverted pyramid. This hierarchy 

views Grand Canyon from a “bottom-up” perspective largely because the ecosystem is strongly 

influenced by the river, its hydrology (including variable and changing climate), and its canyon-bound 

geomorphological setting (Stevens and Gold, 2003). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

Native fish, extirpated species, ambersnail, spring and 

riparian habitats, recreational resources, cultural 

resources, hydropower 

Goals 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 

Aquatic and terrestrial food

Goals 1 and 6 

Sediment 

Goal 8 

Water

Goal 7 

Monitoring and Research

Goal 12 

Ecosystem Resources

 Ecosystem drivers/stressors

Figure 2. GCDAMP Goals in a conceptual ecosystem hierarchy 

For GCMRC to provide meaningful information to GCDAMP stakeholders and managers, it is critical to 

describe not only the status and trends of the CRE elements enumerated in the goals, but also how 

ecosystem drivers or stressors impact those resource status and trends. Only rarely will a single driver or 

19 
stressor act on a single resource (Townsend and others, 2008). It is thus necessary to monitor both 

resources and stressors. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Monitoring is the subject of this plan, but monitoring results must be combined with research to develop 

an understanding of both the resources and the drivers and stressors that impact the resources, comprising 

the basis of ecosystem management. Research is needed to clarify what to measure and how best to 

measure it. Research efforts being conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators are described in documents 

such as the Monitoring and Research Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007) and other work plans. 

Figure 3 illustrates the overall context of core monitoring in the GCDAMP. Core monitoring is a central 

component of many of the technical components of the GCDAMP. Core monitoring relies on inputs from 

AMP goals, conceptual models, resource inventories that establish basic information on the distribution of 

resources, and R&D to develop monitoring protocols. The output from core monitoring helps to assess the 

effectiveness of experimental actions or management actions and informs the development and validation 

of predictive models. Core monitoring also informs assessments of progress towards meeting AMP goals 

and desired future resource conditions. 

18 

Figure 3. Core monitoring in the context of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.

GCD AMP Goals

and 

Desired Future Conditions

Experimental / Management

Actions

Conceptual

Models

Targeted Studies

and

Effects Monitoring

Resource

Inventories Core Monitoring

Protocol 

Testing

Predictive 

Models

Analyze 

And

Evaluate

Adapt

Components

Context of the Core Monitoring Program

20 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

There is a large and expanding body of literature about how to design and implement ecosystem 

monitoring programs (for example, Busch and Trexler, 2003; Williams and others, 2007). Although 

specifics vary from program to program, the following key components are generally accepted to be part 

of any well-designed monitoring program: 

7 • Clear definition of monitoring purpose(s) (with purposes clearly linked to program objectives) 

8 • Definition of target conditions with which to evaluate progress towards achieving desired future 

conditions 

• Use of conceptual and/or predictive model(s) to guide and inform monitoring program design 

• Identification of key ecosystem indicators 

• Explicit sampling designs 

• Definition of data management, analysis, reporting, and archiving procedures

To be useful in a monitoring context, management objectives should be specific and unambiguous, 

measurable with appropriate field methods and data, results oriented, and achievable (Williams and 

others, 2007). The current management objectives in the GCDAMP 2003 Strategic Plan meet some, but 

not all, of these criteria. The GCDAMP Strategic Plan defines broad resource-focused goals (see table 1) 

and multiple management objectives under each of the goals. Although general individual resource goals 

have been qualitatively defined for the GCDAMP, these do not provide much specificity, nor are they 

linked by an overarching goal such as restoration, or balancing goal outcomes among competing 

mandates. The GCDAMP would benefit from additional efforts by the stakeholders to further identify 

specific overarching goals and define attainable performance measures. 

The core monitoring program implemented by GCMRC and cooperators is intended to inform managers 

and stakeholders as to whether AMP goals and objectives as define in the AMP Strategic Plan 

(GCDEAMP 2003) are being met. Measurable objectives or desired future conditions (DFCs) have yet to 

be defined and approved, although the development of target conditions has recently (2010) become a 

priority of the Department of the Interior and an ad hoc group of the AMWG. In the absence of clearly 

defined measurable and attainable objectives, Core Monitoring Programs are being designed to report 

both quantitative and relative measures of change (for example, a resource is increasing or decreasing 

relative to a previous baseline measurement). Once specific target conditions have been defined, the core 

monitoring programs can be further refined to produce data specifically addressing those targets. 

GCMRC proposes the following guidelines for use by managers and stakeholders in developing DFCs: 

Target conditions need to be 

 • measurable 

 • geographically specific 

 • feasible both financially and scientifically 

 • attainable 

 • written at a level of detail consistent with current knowledge 

• relatively easy to understand 

 • compatible with the AMP goals and management objectives 

21 
1 2.3 Core Monitoring Information Needs and Indicators of Resource Condition 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

A suite of core monitoring information needs (CMINs) is defined in the GCDAMP strategic plan (2003) 

for each goal. The CMINs are tied to the management objectives identified under each goal. After 

AMWG prioritized key research questions in August 2004, the GCDAMP’s 2005–06 Science Planning 

Group (SPG)—an ad hoc committee of the AMWG—refined and prioritized the CMINs under each 

strategic goal (see Appendix A for the final list of revised and prioritized CMINs). This core monitoring 

plan relies on the revised and prioritized list of CMINs to guide development of the long-term core 

monitoring program. 

Although the CMINs identify basic information needed by managers to evaluate the success of the AMP, 

some CMINs require further interpretation by scientists in order to be implemented in a monitoring 

context. For example, the “condition” of the rainbow trout fishery cannot be monitored directly but must 

be defined in terms of specific measurable “indicators” of condition. For rainbow trout, for example, 

overall condition is determined from monitoring data that measure length, weight, and number of 

captured fish. These individual condition indicators are then run through a simple algorithm to develop a 

standardized assessment of overall “condition factor” for rainbow trout (Anderson and Gutreuter, 1983). 

Definition of core monitoring protocols first requires determination of the indicators best suited to 

meeting the CMINs of the GCDAMP. The specific indicators measured for each resource are described in 

Chapter 4.

2.4 Relationship between Monitoring and Modeling 

Conceptual models are best used to organize thinking and focus discussions about the ecosystem in 

question, since new data generally lead to a better and sometimes different understanding of how the 

ecosystem works. For any monitoring program, understanding key linkages in the models is essential to 

the process of data analysis and interpretation (Kurtz and others, 2001). 

During FY2010–11, GCMRC is planning to continue to expand and refine specific sub-elements of the 

Colorado River conceptual ecosystem model where significant new information is available. This 

includes understanding the effects of the interrelationship among flows, temperature, and sediment 

conservation and evaluating factors that may be responsible for recent increases in native fish. This may 

be accomplished by linking Lake Powell and downstream temperature simulations to fine sediment, food 

web, and fisheries sub-models. Development of terrestrial landscape models relating dam operations to 

cultural and recreational resource responses is also being considered. 

One fundamental linkage among modeling, monitoring, and active adaptive management is the use of 

monitoring data collected during major policy experiments (e.g., high flow tests) to test key hypotheses 

about ecosystem processes and function. If the same models are supplied with different forcing 

conditions, perhaps similar to those that would be realized with the implementation of a different 

management policy, they may provide quite disparate predictions of resource trend. In this case, past 

monitoring data and models cannot offer much insight into optimum policy choices. However, if resource 

status and trends are monitored during one, or preferably multiple experiments, the observed resource 

trends can be compared to the model outputs to attempt to identify which hypothesis (embedded in one of 

the models) appears most likely to be governing resource response. Paired monitoring and modeling to 

22 
discriminate among alternative hypotheses of system function has been described as a defining 

characteristic of active adaptive management, and lies in stark contrast to less informative surveillance 

monitoring (Yoccoz and others, 2001; Nichols and Williams, 2006). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2.5 Integration of Monitoring and Management Activities across GCDAMP Programs 

The GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007) explicitly emphasizes the need to 

employ an interdisciplinary, integrated science approach over the next 5 years to better support the 

AMWG’s goals of managing and sustaining competing resource values to benefit both humans and the 

natural ecosystem. An underlying premise of both the GCDAMP Strategic Plan (2003) and the GCMRC 

Strategic Science Plan (2007) is that single resources should not be studied in isolation from each other or 

from the sociocultural context in which they occur (see fig. 4). 

Kanab Ambersnail 

and habitat 

 numbers 

(5) 

Disease/Parasite 

(2) 

Downstream 

Non-Native Fishes 

Distribution/Abundance 

(2) 

Non-native 

Fish control 

Archaeological 

Site Condition 

(11)

Recreation 

Experience/ 

Satisfaction 

(9)

Camping 

Beaches 

(9) 

Distribution/Size 

of Sand Bars 

(8) 

Controlled 

Flood 

Sediment 

T i ?

Adult Humpback 

Chub 

numbers 

(2) 

Mainstem flow, 

Temperature, 

Sediment, 

Organic Matter 

(7) 

Lake Powell 

Water Quality 

Dam 

Operations 

Power 

Revenues 

(10) 

Lees Ferry 

Rainbow Trout 

Numbers/Condition 

(4) 

Aquatic 

Food Base 

Tributary flow, 

Temperature, 

Sediments, 

Organic Matter 

(7) 

Riparian Habitat 

and Composition/ 

Distribution 

(6)

Humpback Chub 

translocation 

(Goal) Proposed 

treatments 

Yes 

INTEGRATED CORE MONITORING PROGRAM 

High 

AMWG 

Priority 

Figure 4. Conceptual diagram of linkages between various resource categories, monitoring data, and 

potential management actions. Numbers within boxes indicate associated GCDAMP resource goals, and 

shaded ellipses indicate a spectrum of both experimental flow and nonflow management policies.

Monitoring will continue to be tied to core monitoring information needs related to specific GCDAMP 

goals, but an explicit objective of this plan is to ensure that information will be compatible among the 

various monitoring and research projects. This is to be achieved by explicitly identifying needed inputs 

23 
for each monitoring program that will come from or are dependent on outputs from other monitoring and 

research programs, and by identifying the appropriate output formats required to address other monitoring 

program needs. The use of outward-looking matrices (see example in fig. 5 below) provides one simple 

mechanism for articulating linkages and enhancing integration across monitoring program boundaries.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

 

Actions 

• Temperature Control Device 

• ROD flows 

• Stabilized flows 

• On-going reservoir depletions 

• Surplus criteria ROD 

• Conjunctive use agreement 

• Mechanical removal 

Aquatic Food Web 

Sub-Model

• Fish diet 

• Fish condition factor 

• Fish abundances 

• Other QW 

monitoring/modeling 

(nutrients) 

 Meterological monitoring 

• Fisheries Monitoring 

• Stock assessment (native 

fish, non-natives, LF 

trout) 

• Disease/parasite 

monitoring 

• Recreation 

• Angling evaluation 

• Creel Survey 

• Public Health 

• Power evaluations 

• Lake Powell model 

Output from other sub-models and 

data sets 

• QW 

• Suspended sediment 

monitoring 

Input to other sub-models and data 

sets 

• QW monitoring 

• Reservoir / climate analysis 

• Bioenergetic model 

• Tributary synthesis 

• Recreational evaluations 

• Drift rates 

• Primary and secondary 

production 

Indicators

Figure 5. An outward-looking matrix for the aquatic food web program.

2.6 Integration with Other Monitoring Programs in the Region 

This general core monitoring program is being designed not only to improve integration across program 

areas, but to improve integration with other ongoing monitoring efforts that lie outside the purview of the 

GCDAMP, but are nonetheless relevant to evaluating progress towards achieving AMP goals. In biology, 

24 
for example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently working in partnership with GCMRC to 

collect scientifically robust monitoring data that serve the need for compliance with both the Endangered 

Species Act and the Grand Canyon Protection Act. In the recreation arena, GCMRC and Grand Canyon 

National Park are collaborating in the collection of historical data about campsite distribution and quality 

to serve the needs of both the Park’s Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) monitoring program and 

the GCDAMP. Specific examples of current GCDAMP monitoring programs that are being implemented 

collaboratively to meet multiple agency needs include the following:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

1. Mainstem fish monitoring and humpback chub monitoring. Monitoring of native and nonnative 

fishes in the mainstem Colorado River and the Little Colorado River has been the result of a close, 

productive collaboration among GCMRC, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The monitoring protocols have been developed through a threeway consultation that involved meeting multiple times per year; all three agencies have worked together 

to present monitoring protocols for review by the 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for Grand Canyon 

Fishes. Following recommendations of the 2009 PEP, the three agencies are now working together to 

conduct data analysis in response to PEP critical reviews and recommendations. 

2. Rainbow trout monitoring. GCMRC collaborates with the AZGFD to monitor the rainbow trout 

population from Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry. This collaboration has resulted in a shared, integrated 

approach to the development and implementation of monitoring techniques to address GCDAMP goal 4. 

Both GCMRC and AZGFD personnel work on the monitoring methods, data collection, data 

interpretation, and report writing. Both agencies worked closely with the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon 

Fishes to review and revise monitoring methods. The two agencies are working together to incorporate 

monitoring of early life stages of rainbow trout in collaboration with Ecometric, Inc., a private cooperator. 

3. Kanab ambersnail monitoring. GCMRC collaborates with the AZGFD to monitor the Kanab 

ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise and Elves Chasm; on-site monitoring and conservation actions have been 

led by AZGFD. Grand Canyon National Park has recently committed to participate in this monitoring 

effort as part of their Colorado River Management Plan, and shared photo monitoring from river left, 

opposite Vaseys Paradise, is being coordinated among GCMRC, AZGFD, and the Park. 

Outside of the GCDAMP, various research and monitoring programs are being implemented to meet 

specific resource management needs at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, in Grand Canyon 

National Park, and on Hualapai and Navajo Nation lands. National Park Service and tribal resource 

management programs relate to ongoing mission-driven or mandated management actions such as 

implementation of the Colorado River Management Plan. On National Park Service lands, such 

management actions form the core of park activities related to natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources. Similar programs may be found on tribal lands adjacent to the parks along the Colorado River. 

All of these activities, although occurring outside of the formal GCDAMP process, nonetheless may 

provide critical information that could be linked to ongoing GCDAMP efforts. 

In the early 1990s, responding to criticism that it lacked basic knowledge of natural resources within park 

units, the National Park Service (NPS) initiated its own Inventory and Monitoring Program in an effort to 

detect long-term changes in biological resources (National Park Service, 1992). At the time of the 

program’s inception, basic biological information, including lists of plants and animals, was absent or 

incomplete for many park units; in fact, in 1994, more than 80 percent of NPS units did not have 

complete inventories of major taxonomic groups (Stohlgren and others, 1995). 

25 
A host of NPS-sponsored research and monitoring programs are currently underway within Glen and 

Grand Canyons to address key resource concerns that may indirectly address some of the interests of the 

GCDAMP. Included are baseline programs such as mountain lion (Felis concolor) and big horn sheep 

(Ovis candensis) inventories, threatened and endangered species inventories (for example southwestern 

willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) and spotted owl (Strix occidentalis)), and monitoring of 

springs hydrology and neo-tropical birds. In addition to natural resource inventories and monitoring, in 

recent years the NPS has undertaken some research related to recreational use of the Colorado River to 

inform development of the CRMP, Backcountry Management Plan, and Aircraft Management Plan. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Species inventories and long-term monitoring have both direct and indirect value for the management of 

Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and the GCD monitoring 

program and adaptive management program have direct relationships to this NPS program. The GCMRC, 

through its monitoring programs, is able to provide to the NPS changes in species lists that are not only 

useful in resource interpretation and facilitating visitor appreciation of natural resources, but are also 

critical for making management decisions. In addition, knowledge of which species are present, 

particularly species of management concern, where they occur, and the status of their populations 

provides for informed planning and decision making on the part of the NPS. 

In addition to information on the biological systems of the river corridor, GCMRC also provides to the 

Park Service information on changes occurring to recreation and cultural resources in the river corridor. 

Information from GCDAMP activities has assisted the NPS in quantifying camping beach availability and 

condition for the CRMP, while previous beach inventories form a core component of current GCDAMPrelated campsite assessments. Currently, GCMRC is developing new monitoring protocols to measure 

physical changes at archaeological sites related to dam operation effects. These quantitative 

measurements will complement and enhance other non-quantitative management-oriented monitoring 

data that NPS routinely collects at these sites. 

26 
Chapter 3. Development of Individual Core Monitoring Plans and 

Management Strategy to Support Them 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

After information needs are identified in adaptive management programs, development and 

implementation of monitoring programs typically proceed in three phases (Atkinson and others, 2004): 

1. Resources are inventoried and key relationships between physical process, species, habitats, and 

other causes of variation such as dam operations are identified. 

 This was largely completed for most GCDAMP resource goals by the early 2000s 

2. Long-term monitoring protocols and sample designs are pilot tested. 

 This step has been the focus for GCRMC during the past 8-10 years 

3. Long-term monitoring and adaptive management activities are implemented. 

 This is where we are now

As discussed in chapter 1, the GCDAMP Monitoring and Research Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007) 

lays out a four-step process for defining and refining core monitoring projects associated with various 

GCDAMP goals and key resources based on the best currently available information. This general Core 

Monitoring Plan (CMP) is the first step (1). The remaining three steps comprise the following activities: 

2. Annual Information Needs Workshop (multiple resources may be addressed) 

3. Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) reviews 

4. Core Monitoring Program report review and approval 

This chapter describes steps 2-4 in detail, including information necessary to support the development and 

implementation of individual core monitoring plans in Step 4. This plan outlines a flexible approach 

which integrates risk assessment, trade-off analyses, and specified criteria in the development of the 

individual plans so that managers will have the information necessary to make informed decisions about 

the scope, intensity, and cost of the individual core monitoring programs and overall cost of the final core 

monitoring program. 

3.1 Process to Develop Individual Core Monitoring Plans 

The development of individual core monitoring plans tiers from and directly reflects the program goals, 

management objectives, and core information needs previously articulated by AMWG, and described 

within the 2003 AMP Strategic Plan. The AMP Strategic Plan, in turn, lays the foundation for other 

planning documents, including the 2007 Strategic Science Plan (SSP) and the 2007-2011 Monitoring and 

Research Plan (MRP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). This CMP builds on these existing plans. 

None of the aforementioned plans are intended to be static documents. As information is developed and 

management priorities are addressed, the plans will need to be revisited and may need to be updated to 

reflect current program priorities in accordance with the approved science planning process (Figure 6). 

27 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Figure 6. Collaborative science planning and implementation process. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program and the U.S. Department of the Interior have lead responsibility for the shaded 

boxes. The GCMRC has lead responsibility for the boxes that are not shaded. 

 SSP 

 MRP 

 AWP 

Annual 

Work 

Activities 

Annual/Final 

Reports 

Annual 

Review 

5-year Analysis 

• SCORE Report 

• KA Report 

 AMPSP 

5-Year 

Analysis and 

Report 

Ann

An

Repo

ual 

alysis & 

rt 

Annual 

Analysis & 

Report 

Other Plans: 

• HBC Comp Plan 

• NPS CRMP 

• Colorado River AOP 

• NEPA documents and 

Biological Opinions. 

Until such time as the AMP Strategic Plan is revised, GCMRC will rely on the goals, objectives and key 

definitions described in the 2003 plan, as well as the strategies and priorities identified in second-tier 

plans that have been formally reviewed and approved by AMWG for guiding the development of the core 

monitoring program. The general four-step process for defining and refining core monitoring projects 

incorporates flexibility to respond to changing AMP priorities and refinement of information needs. 

Depending on the scope and complexity of proposed monitoring plans, a range of options may be 

developed through this process, with varying tradeoffs of cost, statistical precision, and extent. GCMRC 

can articulate measures of risk associated with these choices, to the extent practicable, but managers must 

ultimately make choices about how much risk is acceptable and how to implement and pay for the 

program. It is likely that the AMP will choose lower risk, and thus more costly, options, initially. Thus, 

the cost estimates in this plan likely bracket the upper end of possible funding needs. 

3.1.1 Information Needs Workshop 

Step 2 of the four-step planning process involves conducting annual information needs workshops. 

GCDAMP monitoring programs are currently in various stages of development, with some being ready 

for long-term implementation and others still undergoing research and development. After each project 

has been test piloted, it will be subject to a PEP review prior to finalization of the long-term monitoring 

protocols. This review will be preceded by a TWG information needs workshop to reaffirm and clarify 

28 
the core monitoring information needs (CMINs) identified in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan (2003) and 

updated by SPG(Appendix A). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

GCMRC will annually conduct a TWG information needs workshop to review and refine specific 

information needs and the proposed scope of monitoring for specific resources. The workshop will also 

identify specific questions that managers would like to have addressed in the follow-up protocol 

evaluation panel for each resource goal. For example, in FY2009 a TWG information needs workshop 

was held to review the CMINs associated with native and nonnative fish monitoring. 

The schedule for conducting information needs workshops on other core monitoring projects is shown in 

table 2 at the end of this chapter. This is the point where needed risk assessments and trade-off analyses 

will be discussed between GCMRC and TWG and integrated into the monitoring plan development. If 

requested, GCMRC will provide to TWG a discussion of the trade-offs and potential choices in the 

protocols that would be reasonable to consider, based on GCMRC experience in developing the protocols. 

These options can be reviewed with TWG prior to GCMRC developing a final core monitoring proposal 

in Step 4. 

3.1.2 Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel Reviews 

Step 3 of the four-step planning process involves conducting scientific protocol evaluation panel (PEP) 

reviews to review the monitoring needs articulated by managers during the information needs workshop, 

review the results of pilot monitoring efforts and other relevant research and development activities, and 

recommend future monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the monitoring project. 

These PEP review panels are comprised of independent scientists who have no vested interest in 

GCDAMP. The scope of the PEP’s review will be articulated in writing in advance of the PEP and 

supported with relevant literature. The following information will be collected, compiled, and distributed 

to the panels in advance of the review: 

• GCDAMP management objective and information needs, as refined in the annual information 

needs workshop 

• Past and presently used monitoring protocols, including their technical or scientific basis 

• Information on existing protocols, including methods and articles that describe various 

monitoring approaches 

• Requested risk assessments or trade-off analyses 

The review process may also involve reviewing technical presentations from GCMRC and other 

researchers, as well as field trips. The panel develops its final report and recommendations in an executive 

session. The PEP report presents findings and recommendations to the GCMRC chief and the science 

advisors. The report reviews the positives and negatives of current monitoring protocols, and makes 

recommendations for improvement. The results of each PEP evaluation are reviewed by TWG members, 

and comments are forwarded to the GCMRC chief for consideration before new or modified monitoring 

procedures are developed. A more detailed discussion of the PEP process is provided in Appendix B. 

29 
1 3.1.3 Step 4: Core Monitoring Program Reports/Individual Core Monitoring Plans 

2 

3 

4 

5 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Step 4 of the 4 step planning process involves preparing a detailed individual core monitoring plan 

(report) that incorporates the results of information needs workshops and the PEP evaluations and 

recommendations, as well as TWG input. Each core monitoring report (CMR) will include the following 

information: 

6 • GCDAMP goal(s) addressed, including CMINs 

7 • Project title 

8 • Principal investigator(s) 

9 • Geographic scope 

• Justification for monitoring effort including criteria for protocol inclusion and risk assessments 

for critical monitoring choices 

• Project goals, tasks, and schedule by task and CMIN 

• Key science questions and managers’ information needs addressed 

• Linkages to other resources processes and models 

• Monitoring protocols, including sampling designs, level of data resolution, accuracy and 

precision assessment, etc. 

• Expected outcomes, including outputs by fiscal year, reports, guidelines, models, etc. 

• Projected cost of project or program by fiscal year using trade-off analyses describing a range of 

choices and costs based on risk assessments 

Each draft final individual core monitoring plan will be reviewed by the science advisors and then 

provided to the TWG for their final review, deliberation, and endorsement. When requested by TWG, 

trade off analyses will be conducted and summaries describing various suites of choices for the overall 

monitoring program will be provided. Issues related to the report will be resolved at the TWG level or 

elevated to the AMWG and/or Secretary’s designee, if needed. 

3.1.4 Principles of Individual Core Monitoring Plan Development 

Environmental decisions in the GCDAMP generally involve complex scientific and technical issues, plus 

a wide variety of program participants. Scientific uncertainty, value conflicts, ecosystem, and social 

dynamics all contribute to difficulties with decision making. The goal of the process described in this 

chapter is to further refine those choices through a collaborative relationship between TWG, AMWG, and 

GCMRC. To accomplish this, the development of individual core monitoring plans will adopt a 

collaborative framework utilizing (a) program Goals and CMINs, (b) criteria for element inclusion within 

plans, and (c) trade-off analyses. 

30 
1 3.1.4.1 Goals and CMINs 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

The results of the 2005 Science Planning Group (SPG) prioritization of CMINs (see Appendix A) have 

been used to guide the development of the monitoring protocols for the individual core monitoring plans. 

The priorities and ranking of core monitoring information needs by the SPG are primary criteria used in 

developing the individual plans. 

In the future, quantitative indicators of desired future conditions (DFCs) may be defined by TWG and 

AMWG to further focus core monitoring approaches. Until quantitative DFC are developed, this program 

will move forward with developing individual monitoring plans based on existing AMWG guidance, and 

incorporating trade-off analyses and risk assessments as appropriate, with the recognition that some plans 

may need to be revisited and refined after DFCs are established. At that point, plans can be modified to be 

more responsive to the DFCs. It is likely that in the absence of clearly articulated DFCs, the plans will 

have to be broader in scope, and thus may be more costly to implement in the near term. 

3.1.4.2 Criteria 

The primary criteria for the development of monitoring protocols and the eventual core monitoring plans 

themselves are the CMINs, (Appendix A). In the future, the TWG may develop additional specific 

criteria for determining which elements of a given plan are essential to include and which ones are less 

essential. These criteria could include: 

• Priority: a specific resource or a specific indicator of resource condition is a high priority for the 

program to monitor

• Confidence: activities with high confidence of relating to changes in dam operations or eventual 

definition of DFCs 

• Adequacy: to answer critical questions and inform critical decisions in the program. 

3.1.4.3 Trade Off Analyses for Risk Assessment Purposes 

As needed, trade-off analyses will be conducted to provide managers with information needed for 

subsequent risk assessments that they may wish to perform in order to weigh the risks of making 

decisions based on monitoring data of various levels of accuracy or precision and their associated costs. 

Examples of trade-off analyses that might be undertaken include: 

• Analyses of trade-offs between statistical precision, sampling intensity/extent and costs, and the 

scientific implications of these trade-offs. (A series of options might be evaluated which show 

how the power is reduced, or other effects including costs are altered, by either reducing or 

increasing sampling intensity or extent) 

• Trade-offs in monitoring design and statistical rigor (including the use of power analysis to 

develop designs and set sampling levels to achieve desired precision) 

31 
The current work on the Goal 2 fish program illustrates how trade-off analyses may be incorporated into 

future core monitoring plans. First, GCMRC held an information needs workshop with TWG members 

identifying critical information needs and integrated that information with their task to the PEP for the 

review of the fish program. The PEP considered these issues along with the proposed monitoring 

protocols and requested a number of analyses (e.g., sensitivity, risk assessment, etc.) to test various 

scenarios on how to modify the program to be responsive to GCDAMP needs. GCMRC is conducting 

these analyses and intends to bring forward a plan in summer 2010 that incorporates these analyses for 

TWG to review and consider, so that TWG and AMWG can assess the risks and benefits of alternative 

approaches when deciding whether to approve a core monitoring plan for long-term funding. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

In order for managers to make good decisions, the necessary decision support system must be in place to 

fully evaluate risk, costs, and the ability to meet program goals. Following guidance provided by Maness 

(2005), the tradeoff system should have the following objectives: 

1) Fully identify the costs, benefits and reversibility of decisions where possible to do so. 

2) Use discussion and consensus to carefully craft a vision of the overall goals of the management 

paradigm, including ethical or other considerations that define the boundaries of decision making. 

The vision should describe the higher standard required for high cost and/or irreversible 

decisions. Standards should be based on the Safe Minimum Standard argument. 

3) Build a public trust in the process of resolving conflicts about the balance of inputs, outputs and 

attributes to support the vision. 

4) Continually improve performance and goal setting as learning occurs and new information 

becomes available. 

Although this program does not have DFCs in place, it is possible to move forward using trade-off 

analyses to weigh the various types of considerations under each specific core monitoring plan. Trade-off 

analyses could take many forms. GCMRC will discuss with TWG members how trade-offs could be 

described during the information needs workshop and will develop core monitoring plans with sufficient 

information to allow TWG to understand and weigh the risks and trade-offs associated with a given 

approach; however, TWG needs to develop its own process for ultimately deciding how to agree upon the 

scope of individual core monitoring plans. 

3.2. Implementation of Core Monitoring Plans 

The four-step approach to developing core monitoring protocols has been developed by GCMRC in order 

to meet the diverse information needs of GCDAMP stakeholders using a scientifically defensible, peerreviewed process. 

Projects that are approved for core monitoring status will receive first consideration for funding each year. 

Core monitoring projects will be reviewed during the development of the GCMRC annual or biennial 

work plan and may be revised to incorporate new information, findings, and monitoring techniques that 

may improve their effectiveness. After FY2015, a more comprehensive review of core monitoring 

projects will be conducted at 5-year intervals. 

32 
1 3.2.1 Implementation Timelines 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Although sufficient science has been completed to define some of the required long-term monitoring 

methods for fine-sediment mass balance, terrestrial vegetation, and monitoring native and nonnative 

fishes, several other areas of monitoring have not yet been completely resolved. Areas of monitoring 

where research and development on monitoring are still underway and for which PEPs are planned 

between fiscal years 2010 and 2015 include the following subject areas: 

7 • aquatic food web and downstream water quality (nutrient mass balance and trophic linkages) 

8 • cultural resources and archaeological sites 

9 • Lake Powell water quality 

• campsites 

• socioeconomics 

Other projects that are currently in various stages of research and development will be brought forward 

for review over the course of the next 5 years with the goal of having a fully developed core monitoring 

program in place by FY2015. The proposed schedule for undertaking core monitoring reviews of all 

projects is summarized in Table 2. 

Table 2. Proposed schedule for core monitoring program development. 

Goal Resource Completed 

PEPs 

R&D/Pilot 

Phases 

CMIN Workshop/Final 

PEP 

CMP 

Report 

Implement 

CMP 

 1* Food base FY00 FY06–08 FY11 FY11 FY12 

 2 Native fish FY00 FY10 FY09 FY10 FY11 

 4 Lees Ferry 

trout 

FY00 FY01–06 FY09 FY10 FY10 

 5 Kanab 

ambersnail 

FY00 FY01–10 FY11 FY11 FY12 

 6 Riparian and 

spring 

communities 

FY00 FY01–06 FY07,

 FY12 

FY07 FY08 

 7* Quality of 

Water 

FY98 

FY02 

FY98–06 FY11 FY12 FY13 

 8 Sediment FY98 

FY02 

FY98–06 FY06 FY07 FY08 

 9** Recreational 

Experience 

Quality 

FY05 FY07–

11** 

FY12** FY12* FY12* 

10 Hydropower N/A FY07 FY09 FY10 FY11 

11 Cultural 

Resources 

FY00 FY07–12 FY13 FY13 FY13 

18 

19 

* The GCMRC currently plans to conduct a single protocol evaluation panel to review aquatic food base studies, 

downstream water-quality monitoring, and Lake Powell monitoring 

33 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

** Specifically campsite monitoring 

3.2.2 Implementation of Individual Core Monitoring Programs 

Development and implementation of each GCMRC core monitoring projects generally follows a similar 

phased approach, as outlined in Table 3. The process depicted in Table 3 will be used to guide 

development and implementation of all core monitoring projects described in Chapter 4. 

Table 3. Programmatic approach used by GCMRC to guide development and implementation of the core 

Monitoring Program for the GCDAMP (After Palmer and Landis, 2002; Turner and others, 2009). 

Element Activity Tools 

Pre-planning Define goals and information needs

Define project elements 

Information Needs Workshop

PEP reviews of R&D, pilot programs, and 

previous related monitoring programs 

Planning Develop General Core Monitoring Plan

Develop detailed Core Monitoring 

Project plan, including: 

• Monitoring design 

• Measurement and analysis 

protocols (SOPs) 

• Quality Assurance Plan 

• Data Management Plan 

Peer review by internal staff 

Independent peer review 

NPS staff review (for permitting) 

Implementation Conduct staff/cooperator training Training guide and certification forms

Collect, record, control data Scientific notebooks, field forms, data 

recorders 

Collect and control samples (if required) Sample handling manual 

Labeling procedures 

Calibrate and maintain equipment Standard operating procedures (schedule 

for routine maintenance and calibration of 

equipment) 

Conduct audits Audit form

Re-monitor/re-measure Field data collection forms, monitoring or 

re-measurement schedule 

Data Assessment Assess data quality: data review, 

verification, and validation 

Data entry checks, illegal data filters, 

outlier detection, internal consistency 

checks 

Analysis Conduct analysis of data Modeling

Statistical analysis of validated data 

Data Management Finalize dataset Database standards

Metadata standards 

Archive procedures 

Distribute data Web site

Reporting Prepare reports and fact sheets Data synthesis

Edit to final draft stage 

Review reports and fact sheets Independent peer reviews in accordance 

with USGS Fundamental Science Practices 

34 
Element Activity Tools 

Finalize reports and fact sheets Address peer review comments 

Final editing 

Disseminate deports and information Web site

Stakeholder workshops 

Annual Reporting meetings 

Continual 

improvement 

Periodically review project Peer review panels (PEPs) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

3.2.3 Incorporating Future Technical Innovations into Monitoring Programs 

New and innovative approaches are constantly being found as development of individual monitoring 

protocols proceeds. The GCMRC believes that long-term monitoring protocols should continue to 

evaluate new and improved methods when available and as appropriate through time. Project budgets 

should ideally be increased annually by a few percent to enable the projects to continue evaluating new 

methods and monitoring instruments and to cover periodic independent reviews. 

A key failing of the historical monitoring program has been to make a variety of changes in trend 

monitoring methods without continuing parallel sampling using old methods for a limited period of time; 

the use of old and new methods in parallel allows scientists to cross calibrate trend indicators. Parallel 

sampling efforts are especially important when evaluating new noninvasive sampling methods or changes 

in sampling efforts. 

Besides requiring sufficient ongoing funds, any evaluation of new methods must be systematic such that 

data collected remain fully comparable through time, including comparing newly proposed methods to 

existing methods. Changes in data collection and sampling design that cause “disconnects” in long-term 

data streams are to be avoided. New methods will be evaluated while previous data collection methods 

are continued (parallel sampling) to ensure that cross-calibration of trend indicators is possible. This is 

particularly important when new methods are proposed with the intention of reducing costs—an 

inevitable concern with any long-term monitoring program. 

After a period of parallel data collection, full external peer review of the data comparisons, environmental 

impacts, and costs will be conducted prior to making any changes in the monitoring approach that would 

forego previously established monitoring methods or data. This is one example of the commitment to goal 

12 for ensuring a quality adaptive management program for the GCDAMP. 

Evaluation of noninvasive sampling methods as a basic component of maintaining quality monitoring 

programs may include the following activities: 

 • Remote sensing for riparian sediment, vegetation resources, and campsites 

 • Remote sensing for evaluation of fine-scale and longitudinal thermal regimes 

 • Use of automatic counting systems (for example, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in the 

Little Colorado River) 

35 
 • Dissolved oxygen (DO) meters to measure diurnal and seasonal changes as a measure of 

ecosystem function 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

 • Use of acoustic methods for assessing fish distributions and longitudinal densities 

 • Estimation of food base drift densities with acoustic methods 

 • Use of ground-based, oblique lidar for detecting changes in archaeological sites and sediment 

deposits 

 • Use of side-scan sonar and multi-beam acoustic backscattering data to map channel bed 

substrates 

 • Use of airborne water-penetrating Lidar (green lasers) to map channel bed topography 

 • Use of other airborne digital sensors at higher altitudes that reduce over-flight intrusiveness 

3.3 Program Management and Role of Cooperators 

The establishment of GCMRC as an independent, policy-neutral science center that is not affiliated with a 

particular stakeholder group or management agency is a fundamental principle of the GCDAMP. In 

keeping with this principle, this plan assumes that the GCMRC will exercise overall responsibility for the 

management and implementation of the Core Monitoring Program for the AMP. More specifically, the 

role of GCMRC will be to design, implement, and oversee the implementation of all aspects of core 

monitoring as defined above in Table 3. This plan also recognizes that several land and resource 

management agencies, including the NPS, USFWS, AZGFD, and the Tribes, have statutory or regulatory 

responsibilities for long-term management of resources in Grand Canyon. In addition, the USGS, the 

parent organization of GCMRC, includes many leading experts in river science. Collectively, these 

agencies/entities have technical skills and capabilities that can assist in conducting some of the core 

monitoring work being recommended by the GCDAMP. 

Although GCMRC has the overall lead for the GCDAMP core monitoring program, Federal and State 

agencies and the Tribes are an integral part of several ongoing GCDAMP monitoring efforts, including 

monitoring of humpback chub and other native fishes, rainbow trout and other nonnative fishes, 

hydrology, archaeological resources, and traditional cultural properties. Having these agencies/entities as 

active partners in the GCDAMP science program helps meet their statutory responsibilities and facilitates 

the integration of the scientific information into management processes and decisions. 

GCMRC will use the most cost-effective mechanisms to implement core monitoring projects, working 

with the TWG to develop choices for core monitoring using trade-off analyses. In general, GCMRC will 

prepare Requests for Proposals and use an open, competitive process for awarding funding for 

implementation of core monitoring projects. Limited competition cooperative agreements and/or contracts 

in accordance with Federal regulations may be used to conduct specific core monitoring tasks (for 

example, data collection , QA/QC, etc.) if potential Federal and State agencies and the Tribal cooperators 

agree to (a) conduct the required work at a fair cost, (b) meet the required technical specifications as 

determined by GCMRC based on consideration of PEPs, Science Advisor, and TWG recommendations, 

and (c) comply with independent peer review requirements established by GCMRC. Periodic evaluations 

will be conducted to ensure that cooperators are meeting these fundamental requirements. GCMRC 

scientists may conduct field research and monitoring under the same conditions. In every case, the USGS 

will hold its own proposals to the same level of rigorous outside peer review as all others.

36 
1 3.3.1 GCMRC Staffing Requirements 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

The types of staff needed within the GCMRC to oversee, implement, and maintain a core monitoring 

program (2012 and beyond) will be different from those needed to initially develop the program (1995–

2012). Research and development activities require high level researchers to develop and test new 

technologies and monitoring processes. Long-term monitoring requires more technical staff to implement 

or oversee monitoring activities, provide training to staff and cooperators, analyze data, and report the 

results in a timely manner. Some shifting in GCMRC staffing will be needed as the program moves from 

a research and development phase to the core monitoring phase. Since being established in 1995, the 

GCMRC has strategically maintained a high degree of flexibility in its organization so that the permanent 

portion of the staff can be adapted to core monitoring needs as they become better understood and 

supported by the stakeholder program. 

The GCMRC’s estimated general staffing requirements to implement core monitoring based on the 

current inclusive nature of the CMINs and identified monitoring needs consist of the following: 

• Core Monitoring Program Management – 4.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) permanent 

positions at the (Government Service) GS-11 to 15 range (senior ecologist, science chief, 

biology, physical and modeling, sociocultural, data management, logistics program manager) 

• Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis – 4.0 FTEs at the GS-7 to 14 range (biometrician, 

database manager, GIS technician, data archivist and remote sensing analyst)

• Physical Science, Survey, and Modeling – 7.5 FTEs at the GS-7 to 13 range (research 

hydrologist, hydrologist, hydrologic technician, surveyor)

• Biological Science – 7.5 FTEs at the GS-05 to 13 range (aquatic ecologist, fish biologist, 

biological technician, terrestrial biologist, limnologist or hydrologist) 

• Sociocultural Science – 2.0 FTEs at the GS-09 to 11 range (geographer, cultural monitoring data 

analyst, and recreation data analyst)

• Logistics – 1.0 FTEs at the (Wage Grade) WG-08 range (logistical support technician)

The estimated total staff needed to support full implementation of the CMP is approximately 26 full-time 

equivalent positions within the GCRMC. Because of the recurring and long-term nature of core 

monitoring, many of the positions will be permanent full-time positions. As such, under full 

implementation of the CMP, the number of full-time permanent positions at GCMRC is projected to grow 

from 19 to 26 between now and 2015. Administrative and general IT/computer support will be provided 

through the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center, the current administrative support center for the 

GCMRC. 

3.3.2 Information Outreach

The role of outreach is covered by GCMRC’s publications and outreach coordinator. This position, along 

with the GCMRC program managers, and the chief and deputy chief of the GCMRC, share the 

responsibility of getting new information out to the public and managers in a timely and useful format. 

Much of this is accomplished through frequent stakeholder interactions (Federal advisory committee 

37 
meetings) and will be done to a greater degree in the future through data series reports, web seminars, and 

fact sheets. All this information, including monitoring data, will be accessible through the GCMRC 

website. Regarding monitoring data, the DASA program manager is the primary contact for providing 

technical assistance related to data access. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

3.3.3 Logistics and Permitting 

The GCMRC provides complete logistical support for 20–40 research, monitoring, and administrative 

river trips through Grand Canyon annually. These trips range in length from 7 to 21 days and from 4 to 36 

people in size. Trips comprise a variety of motor- and oar-powered boats operated by contracted boat 

operators. Monitoring projects operating in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon 

Dam to Lees Ferry) are supported by a variety of motor-powered boats operated by GCMRC researchers 

and contracted boat operators. Additionally, monitoring activities on the Little Colorado River are 

supported by helicopter services contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The trip planning and scheduling process begins in the fall when the logistics coordinator, in cooperation 

with contracted PIs, program managers, and staff work together to generate a draft schedule of trips for 

the fiscal year. The schedule includes launch and take-out dates, numbers of personnel, and specific boat 

and boat operator requests for each trip. Researchers must submit a Trip Request Form a minimum of 60 

days prior to the scheduled launch date. This form provides information for two purposes: (1) determine 

and schedule logistical and support services, and (2) complete a GCNP River Trip Application in order to 

meet the GCNP 45-day deadline for submitting access permit applications. 

Effective communication with PIs and sensitivity to and awareness of the challenges they face in 

implementing their core monitoring projects enables the GCMRC to offer more customized (and therefore 

more cost-effective and productive) logistical support than other support strategies utilized previously. 

Retaining control over the process of supporting trips also facilitates compliance with NPS regulations 

and allows greater control over issues sensitive to the general public and the “recreational river 

community.” When feasible and practical, multiple monitoring projects will be scheduled together on a 

single trip to reduce costs and trip numbers and to promote more integration between the various 

monitoring projects. As details of sampling design in each of the long-term monitoring projects become 

better known, planning discussions focused at improving integration of monitoring activities will 

continue, including input from the various project chiefs and the logistics program manager as to the 

feasibility of further combining trips and activities. 

3.3.4 Core Monitoring Program Costs 

A variety of sources have been used to estimate the annual costs of core monitoring activities, as shown in 

table 4. A number of the projects, particularly those that have completed the research and development 

and PEP review and recommendation steps, appear with detailed budgets in the GCMRC’s biennial 

FY2010–11 work plan and budget. The total annual cost for quality of water and sediment monitoring 

projects related to goals 7 and 8 are the best known of the 11 projects described in this plan. The other 

nine monitoring projects are associated with “ballpark” estimates because their associated R&D and PEP 

review phases are not yet completed. 

38 
39 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

The total gross cost for the core monitoring program is estimated at approximately $6,000,000 annually, 

representing about 60 percent of the total Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program annual 

budget (on the basis of the FY2010 total). Where possible, costs shown in table 4 have been derived from 

the monitoring project descriptions contained in the FY2010–11 annual work plan. In cases where the 

provisional monitoring projects are not yet underway and therefore not described in the annual work plan, 

best estimates of the project costs have been made by the various program managers who oversee 

development of the proposed monitoring. 

The estimated gross costs for each project (Table 4) have been broken down into several categories, 

including the proportion of each project that will be directly supported by the GCMRC science and 

management staff, the logistics needs, the portion that is intended to be outsourced through contracts or 

cooperative agreements, other related expenses and estimated indirect costs for implementing the 

projects. Currently these are considered to be general estimates, but project costs derived from annual 

work plans (such as goals 7 and 8) are thought to be close to the projected longer term costs, assuming 

annual indexing for inflation. The logistics budgets are distributed across GCMRC monitoring projects 

based on a formula proportional to use of services. The formula takes into account contractor costs, trip 

size and length, and a percentage of operating expenses, salaries, and permitting costs. 

The funding needs projections are based on the estimated cost to implement core monitoring to meet 

currently identified information needs. The ultimate cost of individual core monitoring programs may be 

adjusted based on consideration of trade-offs between costs, precision and program needs. However, 

reaching those decisions through a collaborative approach will be difficult and may require facilitation as 

the GCDAMP has had difficulty in reaching these types of decisions in the past. 
1 

2 Table 4. Summary breakdown of annual estimated costs (direct and indirect) for each core monitoring project. 

Goal Project 

Total gross 

costs including 

program 

managers 

Total 

indirect 

costs 

Total direct 

cost 

GCMRC 

salaries 

and 

benefits 

Logistics 

GCMR

USG

other c

1 Food Web 392,847 68,180 324,667 281,667 30,000 132 Native Fish 1,474,608 157,975 1,316,633 226,746 233,000 623 Extirpated Species — — — — — 4 Rainbow Trout 160,328 22,897 137,431 82,431 15,000 5 Springs / KAS 127,555 19,855 107,700 84,178 5,000 6 Riparian Vegetation 268,371 40,416 227,955 132,955 30,000 157a Quality of Water—Lake 

Powell 288,301 47,448 240,853 173,853 — 46

7b Quality of Water—

Downstream including Suspended Sediment Transport and Mass Balance 1,056,672* 183,389 873,283 337,624 62,593 473

8 Sediment 758,123* 111,685 646,438 377,601 62,622 449 Recreation 231,920 33,781 198,139 134,639 8,000 310 Hydropower 39,193 6,802 32,391 32,391 — 11 Cultural 607,798 104,253 503,545 186,545 60,000 24712a Remote Sensing & Change 

Analysis 791,562 90,181 701,381 232,823 40,000 45

12b Program Management & 

Overview 160,492 27,854 132,638 132,638 

 TOTALS 6,357,771 914,717 5,443,054 2,416,091 546,215 949

* The estimated annual cost for monitoring is based on the FY2010–11 work plan and budget where the project already e

described and proposed as a core monitoring effort following completion of Protocol Evaluation Panel review and recommTWG. All others remain in the R&D phase pending final review and recommendations to the TWG.

3 4 
1 Chapter 4. Core Monitoring Proposals by GCDAMP Goal 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Prior research and development efforts and results of past PEP reviews have focused on developing core 

monitoring activities for each of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) 

goals. The resources that are central to these goals are summarized in figure 7. All but one of the 

resources of concern (hydropower) are downstream components of the Colorado River ecosystem, but 

hydropower is another important resource of interest to the GCDAMP, and one that is directly tied to 

daily dam operations. A summary of the monitoring tasks tied to each goal is provided in table 4, 

followed by descriptions of individual project proposals. 

Quality 

Adaptive Management 

Program

Downstream

Quality of Water

Glen Canyon Dam Operation &

the Downstream 

Colorado River Ecosystem

Sediment

Aquatic Food 

Availability

Riparian & Spring 

Communities

Native Fish

Extirpated

Species

Recreational 

Experience

Hydropower

Archaeological

Sites & TCPs

GCD AMP Strategic Goals 

Rainbow

Trout

Kanab

Ambersnail

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Figure 7. Overview of natural, sociocultural, and recreational resources that are influenced by the 

operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The focus of core monitoring is on Record of Decision operations 

approved by the Department of the Interior in 1996, including modified low fluctuating flows, beach/habitat 

building flows, habitat maintenance flows, and occasionally other types of experimental dam operations, 

such as steady flows and alternative fluctuating flows.
In each of the monitoring proposals, we distinguish between the signals that monitoring must detect and 

the parameters that have been selected for repeated measurement. The “signal” is the response that 

monitoring seeks to detect over some specified time scale to track the status and trend of stakeholderidentified resources (presumably to be compared with future stated desired conditions that might be 

attained through some combination of dam operations and other management actions). The “parameters”, 

which may also be termed “indicators” of condition, are the specific measurements of particular physical 

or biological variables that have been selected for monitoring the associated signal. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

In some cases, the relationship between the signal and the parameter is clear. With respect to water 

temperature, for example, the signal targeted for monitoring is the annual or longer term trend in 

mainstem or nearshore water temperature at various downstream locations. Thus, the parameter being 

monitored is hourly mainstem water temperature at selected representative locations. For sediment, 

however, the relationship between the sediment conservation signal and monitoring parameters is more 

complex. Although sandbars are of great management interest, it is known that sandbar size is highly 

variable and that long-term trends in sandbars are tied to the status of the overall sediment budget. Thus, 

the key signal for sediment monitoring is the status of the fine-sediment mass balance. Therefore, 

monitoring parameters must be selected to track that signal, in addition to any monitoring of the sandbars 

and related habitat resources. 

For native fish, the repeated catch data for humpback chub includes length and weight, as well as location 

caught and mark-recapture history (related to age and growth rate). However the signal of interest to 

managers is the adult population trend of age 4 or older fish, as determined by periodic estimates of adult 

abundance derived from the repeated catch data. Recruitment trends for chub and other native species 

would presumably also be an important signal to report, as well as annual distributions of lengthfrequency data for select species (another means of assessing juvenile recruitment). 

The descriptions of proposed core monitoring activities that follow are presented in the order they appear 

in the 2003 AMP strategic plan; however, they could be presented to reflect the bottom-up trophic 

structure and function of the Colorado River ecosystem, as described in the previous chapter of this plan: 

• Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program (goal 12)

• Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals (goal 7)

• Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals (goal 8)

• Protect or improve the aquatic food base so it will support viable populations of desired species at 

higher trophic levels (goal 1)

• Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove jeopardy from humpback 

chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitat (goal 2)

• Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the extent 

practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish (goal 4)

• Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable (goal 3)

• Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail (goal 5)

• Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including threatened and 

endangered species and their critical habitat (goal 6)

• Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 

ecosystem, within the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystems goals (goal 9)

42 
43 

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 • Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and 

advisable, within the framework of the adaptive management ecosystem goals (goal 10)

3 • Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, 

present, and future generations (goal 11)

Understanding the proposed approach to goal 12 requires some additional explanation because it has both 

global and specific elements. First, goal 12 encompasses many elements of administering the various 

science and support programs of the GCMRC, such as Physical/Modeling, Biology, Sociocultural, 

Logistics, and DASA (data management and GIS support). In addition, there is also the oversight 

provided by the chief and associated staff in managing budgets and programs, facilitating interactions 

with stakeholders and policymakers, and ensuring that appropriate levels of external peer review and 

fundamental science practices are consistently followed. Second, the GCMRC, through focused activities 

led by the DASA program, commits to providing quadrennial airborne overflights of the entire Colorado 

River ecosystem to provide systemwide data on terrestrial resources (see goal 12 remote sensing project 

description for details below). These periodic overflights are scheduled in coordination with dam 

operations at consistently similar, relatively low steady flows to ensure that change detection analyses 

conducted by various users are comparative over time—a major emphasis of the monitoring program. The 

overflights are a foundational component of the long-term monitoring program and are intended to 

provide data pertaining to several resource goals, such as sediment, recreation, cultural resources, fish 

habitats, and riparian vegetation. The dual elements of goal 12 are segregated on this basis, as shown in 

table 4. 

Because information is still being developed to reliably define the monitoring methods and associated 

costs for the above resource areas, descriptions of the entire suite of activities required for the long-term 

monitoring program and associated costs in this draft plan are estimates. Nevertheless these cost estimates 

will be useful in long-term budget planning for the GCDAMP to ensure that adequate resources are 

available for core monitoring. 
1 

2 3 

Table 5. Summary of proposed focus, scope, and parameters for core monitoring (to be determined more precisely after compleinformation workshops and a final protocol evaluation panel [PEP] technical review) by Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Managem

GCDAMP Goal Focus Geographic scope Parameters Fre

1. Aquatic food availability 1a. Aquatic food base Total organic carbon budget Glen Canyon Dam (GCD)

to Pearce Ferry 

Primary production, tributary

inputs 

Ann

1b. Diet, density, and 

predation 

Invertebrate production GCD to Pearce Ferry Biomass and density of dominant 

taxa 

2. Native fishes 2a. Lower 1,200 m Little Colorado River (LCR) 

Maintain reproduction, evaluate 

recruitment 

Lower 1,200 m in LCR Population status, trends, and 

condition factors 

2b. Lower 15 km LCR Evaluate survival and 

recruitment 

Lower 15 km in LCR Population status, trends, and 

condition factors 

2c. Mainstem native fishes 

Evaluate survival and recruitment 

GCD to Diamond Creek Population status, trends, and 

condition for multiple size classes 

Thr

2d. Parasites and disease 

Evaluate parasites and diseases 

that may negatively impact native fishes 

GCD to Diamond Creek Infection rates and densities Bia

2e. Mainstem Nonnative Fishes 

Minimize impacts to native 

fishes 

GCD to Pearce Ferry Population status, trends, and 

condition factors 

3. Extirpated species No current activity N/A N/A N/A4. Lees Ferry rainbow trout and other nonnatives 

Sustainable, high quality

angling 

Glen Canyon tailwaters Population status, trends, and 

condition for multiple size classes 

Sea

5. Kanab ambersnail (KAS) 5a. KAS population Snail and egg abundance Vaseys Paradise Ann5b. KAS habitat Area and vegetation types 

(quality) 

Vaseys Paradise Ann

6. Riparian and spring communities 

Discerning impacts of dam 

operations on vegetation 

GCD to Diamond Creek Vegetation communities: species 

composition, density, and distribution 

Ann

witupd

7. Lake Powell quality of water 

Lake Powell water-quality

parameters 

Lake Powell Temperature, conductance, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, oxidationreduction potential, turbidity 

Qu
GCDAMP Goal Focus Geographic scope Parameters Fre

7. Downstream discharge and quality of water 7a. Discharge Water discharge and stage in 

the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) 

GCD to Diamond Creek Surface water records (stage and 

discharge) 

15 

7b. Inorganics State of the sediment massbalance on the reach scale; 

Sediment grain size, Track tributary-supplied water, organics, and dissolved constituents 

GCD to Diamond Creek Suspended-sediment 

concentration and grain size, specific conductance 

15 

7c. Chemistry Oxygen content in Glen Canyon 

reach and full water chemistry downstream 

Glen Canyon reach, Lees 

Ferry and above Diamond Creek gaging stations 

Dissolved oxygen, full water 

chemistry as part of AZDEQ at the Colorado River at Lees Ferry gaging station and NASQWN at the Colorado River above Diamond Creek gaging station 

15 dissfouthe stattimgagDia

7d. Temperature Water temperature through the 

CRE 

GCD to Diamond Creek Degrees Celsius (°C) 15 

8. Sediment Track changes in sandbar area 

and volume; measure changes in deep eddy and channel pool sediment volume; track changes in sediment grain size 

45 long-term sandbars and 

long reaches between gaging stations 

Repeat topographic and grain size 

surveys 

Ann

yeasurvelevsurvmothobathsize

9. Recreational Experience 9a. Campsites Area, quality, and distribution Campable area at long-term 

sandbars and remotely sensed data elsewhere; AAB sites 

Campable area above and below 

active fluctuating flow range 

Ann

45 
46 

GCDAMP Goal Focus Geographic scope Parameters Fre9b. Experience quality Recreational attribute trade-offs GCD to Pearce Ferry Full suite of attributes 

contributing to recreational experience 

Eve

10. Hydropower 10.1 Power generation 

and costs 

Kilowatts and costs GCD Hourly generation capacity, 

replacement market values 

Hou

11. Cultural Resources 11a. Archaeological 

sites 

Resource condition and physical stability 

Sample of sites in CRE Erosion rates, surface stability Bia

11b. TCPs (Traditional Cultural Properties)and tribally valued resources 

Selected sites in CRE ? Ann

Goal 12. Quality Adaptive Management Program, including quadrennial (digital remote sensing data) 12.a. Assurance of a quality monitoring program 

Integrated ecosystem science 

approach 

All GCDAMP Resources of the CRE 

Physical, biological, and 

sociocultural, plus quality data management and integrated analyses 

Ann

12.b. Remote sensing

activities 

Emphasis on terrestrial 

resources above 8,000 cfs 

Systemwide remotely

sensed imagery 

Terrestrial substrates, vegetation, 

recreational camp areas and archaeological sites and perhaps others 

Qu

1 
1 Summary 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Most of the monitoring projects described above—such as the downstream quality of water, suspendedsediment mass balance, or the model-derived estimate for adult population of humpback chub and other 

native fish—require field efforts in combination with some level of analysis prior to annual reporting 

(written and oral presentations to stakeholders in January of each year). Other monitoring projects simply 

provide a continuation of a specific time series for a parameter of interest, such as temperature recorded at 

various downstream locations, following adopted quality assurance protocols prior to annual reporting. In 

total, these monitoring tasks are intended to track the status and trends of each of the downstream 

resources of concern within the GCDAMP, as well as hydropower which is not a downstream resource, 

but is closely tied to Glen Canyon Dam operation. 

Management of the wide array of data collected from these core monitoring tasks is a critical and 

complex undertaking in itself, with quality assurance protocols needing to be implemented at key steps 

along the way prior to annual reporting and data serving. Elements of goal 12 include quality 

management of the monitoring data and periodic acquisition of remotely sensed, digital imagery, along 

with serving and supporting data requests from scientists and managers. The change detection analyses 

and reporting tied to remote sensing efforts are described in the goal 12 project description in this chapter. 

Chapter 4 of this plan is devoted to data management and reporting, as well as the more research-focused 

activities that rely on monitoring data, such as periodic knowledge assessments, intra and interdisciplinary 

syntheses, and ecological modeling. 
Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support 

viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

Statement of Problem 

The use of large rivers for navigation, power generation, water supply, pollution disposal, flood control, 

and riparian/floodplain use often results in greatly altered freshwater ecosystems. Large rivers in the 

Western U.S. have been extensively dammed for water storage and power generation; these dams alter the 

physical habitat and temperature regime in predictable ways (Ward and Stanford, 1983; Stanford and 

Ward, 2001). For example, the Green River in Utah below Flaming Gorge Dam lost most of its mayfly 

species after dam construction (Vinson, 2001), and now supports a productive nonnative trout fishery. 

The downstream sections of the Colorado River in Arizona have been physically and biologically altered 

since construction of Glen Canyon Dam. Water temperatures in most years are uniformly cold at ca. 9°C, 

whereas prior annual temperatures fluctuated from 2 to 26°C (Voichick and Wright, 2007). In addition, 

variability in discharge is greatly reduced compared to the pre-dam era, but daily variation has increased 

greatly due to hydropower generation. Sediment supply is greatly reduced because sediment that normally 

would come from upstream is trapped behind Glen Canyon Dam. This sediment reduction has increased 

the level of light in the water, contributing to high algae concentrations, especially near the dam upstream 

of sediment-laden tributaries (Stevens and others, 1997c). Invertebrate assemblages are species-poor and 

consist mainly of nonnative amphipods (Gammarus), black flies (Simulium), midges (Chironomidae), and 

oligochaetes (Stevens and others, 1997c), and the river was recently invaded by nonnative New Zealand 

mud snails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum; Benenati and others, 2002). 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables

GCMRC is conducting research to determine what core aquatic food base components to monitor to best 

inform management. We are pursuing a strategy of determining the amount of carbon being fixed, 

consumed, ingested, and egested in the biological ecosystem components from algae and plants (primary 

producers that fix carbon in photosynthesis) up through the highest trophic level, fish. 

Our current methods will provide the foundation for future monitoring efforts plus a dataset that can be 

used to predict how environmental scenarios and management strategies (e.g., prolonged drought, 

increased temperature, and flow regime modifications) alter the flow of energy through biotic 

components of the ecosystem. This foundation is based on rates of reach-scale primary and secondary 

production, diet analysis and stable isotopes, and rates of energy transfer within the food web. 

Links to Other Program Elements

An important part of maintaining biological integrity at higher trophic levels is ensuring that there is a 

sufficient food supply to support them. The GCDAMP has recognized this relationship with the 

development of goal 1. Developing an understanding of how energy, as measured by elemental carbon, is 

stored and transferred in the ecosystem is a critical management information need. For example, low 

temperatures decrease rates of fish and invertebrate growth; carbon inputs have changed with the 

installation and operation of Glen Canyon Dam; high light increases rates of primary production; 

nonnative mud snails may represent a dead-end for carbon flow in the food web; and nonnative trout may 

compete and prey upon native fishes. Measuring energy flow at both the ecosystem scale and through the 

food web is required to understand how management actions can affect animal populations in the river. 

48 
1 Core Monitoring Information Needs

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

The core monitoring needs for goal 1 require determination of the composition and biomass of primary 

producers and benthic invertebrates. Following the direction of the 2001 PEP (Anders and others, 2001), 

GCMRC is measuring energy flow through aquatic organisms which in turn will be used to determine 

which species are most important to monitor in order to provide managers with an evaluation of the 

relative health and function of the system. The complete list of CMINs is provided in Appendix A. 

Summary of Previous Work

A food base monitoring program was established by GCMRC in 1997 via a competitive Request for 

Proposals process; investigators from Northern Arizona University were awarded contracts to conduct 

this program. The food base monitoring program was discontinued in 2003 owing primarily to the 

recommendations of the Protocol Evaluation Panel (Anders and others, 2001) and Scientific Advisor 

Panel (Palmer and others, 2004). Both panels indicated that a food base monitoring program needed to 

more completely describe the linkages between lower trophic levels and fish for it to be effective. That is, 

the food base monitoring program was measuring biomass and abundance of lower trophic levels but it 

was unclear which components of the food base were most important to fish. The current monitoring 

research and development project is making estimates of the major carbon inputs (that is, particulate and 

dissolved organic matter from Lake Powell, particulate and dissolved organic matter from tributaries, 

particulate and dissolved organic matter from Lees Ferry tailwater algae production, particulate organic 

matter from riparian vegetation, and particulate and dissolved organic matter from downstream algal 

production), invertebrate production, and fish production, as well as quantifying the flux of energy among 

these trophic levels using a combination of gut content analysis and stable isotopes analysis for each of 

six sites along the Colorado River. The data will be used to develop quantitative food webs that identify 

the dominant or critical pathways of energy flow leading to native and nonnative fishes; these dominant 

or critical pathways will be the focus of the core monitoring program. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Geographic Scope 

In its current research phase the aquatic food base project has sampled the aquatic biota quarterly on fullriver field trips (Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek) four times per year. Monthly sampling has been 

conducted at Lees Ferry and at Diamond Creek. 

Temporal Scope 

In June 2009, we will scale back field activities to include the following: 

• monthly visits to Lees Ferry to collect invertebrate drift samples and recalibrate dissolved oxygen 

monitors, 

• monthly visits to Diamond Creek to recalibrate dissolved oxygen monitors for continuous 

assessment of community production and respiration, and 

• quarterly visits to Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek to collect the full suite of food base samples 

that were collected during the initial phases of this project. 

49 
We propose maintaining this level of sampling effort until the aquatic food base core monitoring begins. 

At this time, the maximum estimated level of effort needed for the future core monitoring program is 

monthly sampling at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek and 1–2 river trips per year. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Methods 

The new food base initiative is using a variety of techniques (gut content analysis of invertebrates and 

fish, stable isotope analysis of all trophic levels) to determine the important linkages between lower 

trophic levels and fish. Further, the food base initiative is also making regular measurements of biomass 

and abundance of lower trophic levels. The frequency and spatial extent of these measurements is 

comparable to previous food base monitoring efforts. 

The new food base initiative measures rates of carbon flow through all trophic levels including the 

ecosystem metabolism, invertebrate secondary production, trophic basis of production of the 

macroinvertebrate primary consumers, and carbon flow to fish. We are attempting to measure wholestream primary production and community respiration at the reach scale, which integrates metabolism in a 

several-kilometer river reach. We are also measuring taxon-specific rates of secondary production of 

invertebrates and fishes. Ultimately, we will link these energy flows together in a quantitative food web 

using the trophic basis of production approach (Benke and Wallace, 1980; Hall and others, 2000; RosiMarshall and Wallace, 2002), as suggested by prior program reviews (Anders and others, 2001; Palmer 

and others, 2004) that called for shifting the emphasis of the monitoring plan from a focus on biomass to 

one on energy flow. 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule 

GCMRC plans to end the full-river research trips in 2009, will but continue to conduct monthly sampling 

at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek on the Colorado River through June 2009. Development and evaluation 

of food base monitoring protocols began in 2005 and will continue into early FY2010. Recommendations 

for core monitoring of the aquatic food base elements will be delivered at the end of FY2010. It is 

anticipated that GCMRC will initiate of the aquatic food base core monitoring in FY2011. A protocol 

evaluation panel review of the aquatic food base monitoring program is anticipated in approximately 

FY2011 after delivery of the final report of the research and development project. 

50 
Goal 2: Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, 

remove jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent 

adverse modification to their critical habitats 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Statement of Problem 

The humpback chub is a large-bodied cyprinid fish endemic to the Colorado River basin. There are six 

populations of humpback chub, the largest of which is currently the Grand Canyon population (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2002a, 2008a). As one of the only remaining native fish of the Colorado River that 

occurs in Grand Canyon, it is an indicator of aquatic ecosystem health. Because this endangered species 

and associated critical habitat occur below, and may be affected by, Glen Canyon Dam, conservation of 

the species and its habitat are environmental concerns for the GCDAMP. Pursuant to the 2008 Biological 

Opinion of Glen Canyon Dam operations, the USFWS requires an annual assessment of the humpback 

chub in the Colorado River below the dam, to gage progress toward recovery and to determine if or when 

reinitiation of Endangered Species Act consultation may be required. Annual humpback chub monitoring 

is needed to support the annual stock assessment. 

In addition to dam operations, humpback chub and other native fish may be affected by other natural and 

human-caused factors, including climate, nonnative fish species, and diseases (especially parasites). The 

highly variable infestation rates of parasites make it difficult to assess their impact to humpback chub 

population viability, and more work is needed to address this issue. The adult humpback chub population 

size has varied since 1989 (Coggins and Walters, 2009) when intensive monitoring programs for this 

species were established; monitoring data provide quantitative information for investigating what factor 

or factors cause population size changes. 

Nonnative fishes are thought to pose a significant threat to survival and recovery of native fishes in Grand 

Canyon (Gloss and Coggins, 2005; Pine and others, 2009). Monitoring changes in the abundance and 

distribution of nonnative fishes is needed to determine the scope of nonnative control activities that may 

be initiated. For example, an estimate of rainbow trout abundance will determine if or when control 

efforts for that species will be initiated. 

The razorback sucker, the other endangered species mentioned in goal 2, has not been observed in Grand 

Canyon since the 1980s. Ongoing monitoring efforts continue to look for this species, but the GCDAMP 

does not currently implement a specific program for the its conservation. Other native fish species also 

serve as indicators of ecosystem health in the Colorado River ecosystem, so GCMRC and cooperators 

also monitor bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus) and flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis). 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

Fish population sizes and trends are the primary signals monitored within goal 2 activities. The agestructured mark-recapture (ASMR) model of Coggins and others (2006) is the primary tool used to track the 

multiyear status and trends of the humpback chub population in Grand Canyon. The closed population 

estimate of humpback chub in the Little Colorado River (LCR) conducted by the USFWS provides a 

useful year-to-year monitoring assessment of the population, as that tributary is where the bulk of the 

population reproduces. The ASMR model depends on mark-recapture data for humpback chub that are 

collected each year. Catch per unit effort values are the other data most often collected for assessment of 

the other fishes in Grand Canyon. 

51 
Multiple monitoring efforts per year have allowed researchers to put unique identifying tags in more than 

24,000 humpback chub that are 150 mm or longer to date. Researchers are currently experimenting with 

putting these tags in smaller size fish to allow assessments of year-class strengths at one age earlier (one 

year earlier) than is now possible (good estimates of cohort strength are not obtained now until the fish 

are at least 3 years old, and tagging at 100 mm would move this down to 2 years old). These passive 

integrated transponder (PIT) tags allow for tracking individual humpback chub capture locations and 

length, the primary data that feed into the ASMR model. The ASMR model determines the status and 

trend of the Grand Canyon adult (

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

> 4 years old) humpback chub population in the latest draft recovery 

goals for the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a). The USFWS determined that if the Grand 

Canyon humpback chub adult population estimate drops to 3,500 individuals, then consultation with the 

Bureau of Reclamation will need to be reinitiated. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Status and trends of bluehead sucker and flannelmouth sucker are also monitored by existing efforts. 

Relative capture rates are recorded, and most of the larger individuals of these fish species are also given 

PIT tags when captured. 

Links to Other Program Elements 

Scientists and managers working in Grand Canyon recognize that the status and trends of humpback chub 

are influenced by biological and physical factors, many of which are monitored by other GCMRC 

monitoring projects. The aquatic food base results will help determine what food resources may be 

available for humpback chub and other native fishes. Results of nonnative fish monitoring and risk 

assessment provide critical information to managers considering what management actions may be taken 

to conserve humpback chub, such as whether competition or predation, or both, are more critical issues to 

be addressed by managers. Physical factors that likely influence fish include water temperature and 

turbidity, factors monitored under goals 7 and 8. Part of the humpback chub habitat has a dynamic nature 

because of the sand and fine sediment that moves through the system, a physical factor also monitored as 

part of goal 8. Fish, like all other animals, require food for survival, and their sources of food are 

monitored under goal 1 monitoring activities. The terrestrial environment, monitored under goal 6, may 

contribute both shoreline cover and organic inputs into the aquatic system, and so is another biotic factor 

to consider for its association to humpback chub. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The CMINs for humpback chub focus on tracking various size classes of the Grand Canyon humpback 

chub population. Core monitoring needs also recognize that predation, competition, and disease may all 

play some role in humpback chub population health and so also seeks to monitor nonnative fishes and 

disease. The core monitoring needs also mention the razorback sucker, but since the species has not been 

observed in Grand Canyon since approximately the mid-1980s, it is not a focus of current efforts in Grand 

Canyon. The complete list of CMINs is provided in Appendix A. 

Summary of Previous Work 

The humpback chub, first described from Grand Canyon (Miller, 1946), is the only remaining member of 

the genus Gila inhabiting the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Grand Wash Cliffs (two 

other Gila species used to be found in Grand Canyon). This species was the first to be listed as 

endangered by the USFWS, in 1967, and it is protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Because of their legal status, humpback chub are the subject of a high 

level of effort to not only monitor their Grand Canyon population but also to conduct research (described 

elsewhere) to investigate the causes of their population fluctuations. 

52 
Scientific assessment of the fish community of Grand Canyon was initiated in the mid-20th century with 

the work of R.R. Miller (1946). W.L. Minckley began investigating these species in the 1960s, Suttkus 

and Clemmer (1977, 1979) were investigating the fish community of Grand Canyon in the 1970s, and 

C.O. Minckley (1996) was investigating them in the 1980s and 1990s. M.E. Douglas and P.C. Marsh 

(1996) carried on investigations in the 1990s, as did various USFWS personnel (e.g., see Gorman and 

Stone, 1999; Stone and Gorman, 2006, and references therein). Coordinated multi-agency native fish 

monitoring was supported by the Bureau of Reclamation in the late 1980s and into the 1990s (Valdez and 

Ryel, 1995). With the completion of the 1996 EIS and ROD, the GCMRC took the lead, on behalf of and 

with financial support from the GCDAMP, in monitoring the Colorado River fish community in Grand 

Canyon. Current monitoring is conducted in association with the USFWS and AZGFD. Tribal 

stakeholders in the GCDAMP, particularly Hualapai tribal members, have participated in some of the 

native fish monitoring and management actions in Grand Canyon. At various times private contractors 

have also played an important role in conducting and supporting native and nonnative fish monitoring, 

especially in the 1990s and early 2000s. Most of the data generated by these efforts is summarized in the 

fish database now maintained by GCMRC. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

The historic dataset and the ongoing activities described above constitute a nearly unparalleled collection 

of mark-recapture data, beginning in 1989. Since 2001, a number of open population mark-recapture 

abundance estimation models have been constructed to infer LCR humpback chub population dynamics. 

ASMR, developed by Coggins and co-authors (Coggins and others, 2006), is the latest model. This peerreviewed model has been updated twice with more current data since original publication (Coggins, 2007; 

Coggins and Walters, 2009). 

Two annual Colorado River trips were conducted during 2002–06, with the first concentrating on the 

stratified random design, and the second focusing on multiple aggregation sites (Johnstone and Lauretta, 

in review). In 2007 two trips focused efforts mainly in the LCR inflow reach timed to roughly coincide 

with the LCR sampling—or concurrent sampling. This concurrent sampling approach was implemented 

to compare the resultant closed population estimation with the performance of the open population 

estimation model, ASMR; as noted, the USFWS has concluded that ASMR performs well (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2008a), so additional concurrent sampling is not expected in the future. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Monitoring of humpback chub has been spatially focused on the LCR and the mainstem Colorado River 

near the mouth of the LCR (RM 57-65.4), sometimes called the LCR reach. Other native and nonnative 

species are also captured with these efforts, primarily bluehead sucker and ictalurids (catfish species). 

Locations and strategies are discussed further below. To date, the mainstem monitoring project has been 

the primary method of gathering information about other native and nonnative species in the Colorado 

River. 

Parasite monitoring has focused on the nonnative Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi). This 

intestinal parasite is found in highly variable infestation rates in humpback chub and other native and 

nonnative fishes of Grand Canyon (Linder and others, 2008). 

Monitoring of Grand Canyon fish species, especially humpback chub and rainbow trout, was reviewed by 

an independent protocol evaluation panel (PEP) in 2009. The panel recommended a shift in monitoring 

effort with the caveat that their recommendation should be subjected to a review of the available data to 

include modeling exercises that model the monitoring shifts they recommended. The review 

recommended by the PEP will be conducted during fiscal year 2010. Assuming that their specific 

recommendations are supported by the data review; the monitoring the PEP recommended will be 

partially implemented in 2010 with full implementation in 2011. If the data do not support the specific 

53 
PEP recommendations, then the GCDAMP will return to fish monitoring protocols implemented in 2009 

and 2010. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon fish observed that current monitoring of humpback chub in the LCR 

may be more intensive than necessary. If the LCR monitoring could be reduced, efforts could be shifted 

to the mainstem Colorado River where many questions about native and nonnative fish remain 

unanswered. Additional fish monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River would allow for broader 

geographic sampling and additional surveys for the presence of both native and nonnative fishes, thereby 

achieving multiple aims. 

Geographic Scope 

Owing mainly to the reproductive status of the LCR inflow aggregation of humpback chub (hereafter 

referred to as the LCR humpback chub population) and the distribution of this population in both the LCR 

and the main channel of the Colorado River near the confluence of the LCR, monitoring strategies differ 

among the LCR population and the remaining eight aggregations. Current LCR monitoring for humpback 

chub includes two mark/recapture trips in the lowest 13.6 km of the river, deploying one pair of trips in 

the spring and one pair of trips in the fall. The spring trips are conducted in parallel with an intensive 

spring monitoring trip of the lower 1,200 m of the LCR, monitoring and recording native and nonnative 

fishes. The 2009 PEP recommended that a single pair of trips be deployed in the spring each year, 

supplemented by some of the locations currently monitored by the monitoring project in the lowest 1,200 

m of the river. 

Monitoring of the mainstem Colorado River is currently conducted using two electrofishing trips in the 

spring of each year, deployed approximately 60 days apart. The 2009 PEP recommended that mainstem 

electroshocking should continue, but that additional mainstem monitoring trips should be deployed in the 

late summer and fall using different gear types. These trips would attempt to sample with multiple gear 

types at locations that are determined by historic aggregation locations of humpback chub and potential 

congregation points for nonnative fishes, such as tributary mouths, interspersed with randomly assigned 

locations. 

Humpback chub distribution in the mainstem Colorado in Grand Canyon has been characterized as 

occurring in nine discrete locations or aggregations: 30 Mile, RM 29.8–31.3; LCR Inflow, RM 57–65.4; 

Lava Canyon to Hance, RM 65.7–76.3; Bright Angel Creek Inflow, RM 83.8–92.2; Shinumo Creek 

Inflow, RM 108.1–108.6; Stephen Aisle, RM 114.9–120.1; Middle Granite Gorge, RM 126.1–129.0; 

Havasu Creek Inflow, RM 155.8–156.7; and Pumpkin Spring, RM 212.5–213.2 (Valdez and Ryel, 1995). 

Of these, only the LCR Inflow is recognized as a reproducing population in that it consistently 

demonstrates some level of successful recruitment (Kaeding and Zimmerman, 1983; Valdez and Ryel, 

1995; Gorman and Stone, 1999; Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins, 2007). The remaining eight 

aggregations most likely exist as a result of either downstream transport of juvenile humpback chub from 

the LCR inflow aggregation, or relict fish (30 Mile population) produced in years immediately after 

construction of Glen Canyon Dam (Valdez and Ryel, 1995). However, limited reproduction of humpback 

chub has been documented upstream of the LCR inflow in the 30 Mile reach (Valdez and Maslich, 1999), 

and humpback chub produced there again in 2005 and 2006 may have overwintered (Andersen and 

others, in prep.). Limited movement has been documented between the LCR inflow and the other 

aggregations (Paukert and others, 2006). 

Parasite monitoring of humpback chub is also conducted on the LCR. This geographic focus is due to the 

relatively high catch rates of humpback chub in this tributary and because of the logistic feasibility of 

establishing temporary tanks that allow for nonlethal parasite monitoring. 

54 
1 Temporal Scope 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Humpback chub and other fishes are monitored primarily between February and October. Task-specific 

timing is presented with the individual projects in the Methods section below. 

Methods 

The following projects present the current methods for monitoring humpback chub and other fishes found 

in Grand Canyon. These brief descriptions also indicate how the projects are anticipated to change in 

response to the recommendations of the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon fishes, subject to additional analysis 

and review in FY 2010. If the data analyses conclude that the protocol changes recommended by the PEP 

are not warranted, methods will revert to those conducted in 2009 and 2010. 

Annual Spring and Fall Humpback Chub Abundance Assessments in the Lower 15 km of the LCR 

This project, which has been ongoing since 2000, produces annual assessments of the abundance of 

humpback chub more than 150 mm in total length (e.g., Van Haverbeke and Stone, 2009, updating the 

work of Douglas and Marsh, 1996). The spring sampling is intended to coincide with the peak of 

humpback chub spawning in the LCR, likely providing our most reliable estimate of annual spawning 

magnitude. The fall sampling is aimed primarily at providing an estimate of the abundance of subadult 

fishes rearing in the LCR. These efforts rely on multiple event mark-recapture analyses of PIT tag data to 

produce abundance estimates using closed population models. Four 12-day trips into the LCR are 

conducted to collect the data needed to construct these estimates. These trips occur in the spring (April 

and May) and in the fall (September and October). Sampling is predominantly conducted using hoop nets 

evenly distributed throughout the lower 15 km of the LCR. 

The 2009 PEP recommended that this full protocol (two mark-recapture trips in each of two seasons) may 

be unnecessary and that there were advantages to sampling endangered humpback chub less frequently, 

especially to reduce handling. They recommended combining some of the locations and efforts of the 

lower 1,200 m monitoring (see following paragraphs) into two spring mark-recapture trips. The PEP 

further recommended that LCR sampling only be conducted in the spring, when the largest numbers are 

observed, or perhaps on an alternating schedule, where it was conducted in the spring one year and the 

fall in the following year. A seasonally alternating schedule would allow for observing and tagging 

different age classes of humpback chub in different years, so an alternating schedule may be 

recommended by the 2010 data review. 

Annual Spring Relative Abundance Assessment in the Lower 1,200 m of the LCR 

This project, which was established by the AZGFD in 1987, has operated continuously through 2008 with 

the exception of the years 2000–01 (Ward and Persons, in review). This program produces annual 

assessments of the relative abundance (that is, catch per unit effort, CPUE) of all size classes of 

humpback chub, flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, speckled dace, and a host of nonnative fishes in 

the lower 1,200 m of the LCR. Data are collected during a 30–40 day period in spring using hoop nets set 

in standardized locations distributed throughout the reach. This effort represents the longest and most 

consistent database available to infer trends in the LCR humpback chub population. It provides an 

independent assessment of the spring population estimation trips. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon fish recommended that some of the methods and locations of this 

sampling be incorporated into a spring sampling trip consisting of two trips to conduct mark and 

recapture sampling (see section above). Methods to be incorporated would consist of including additional 

55 
hoop net mesh sizes. The reporting conducted in this current project, where all species captured are 

recorded, is recommended for inclusion into a single spring sampling project. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

Annual Spring/Summer Humpback Chub Relative Abundance Assessment in the LCR Inflow (RM 57–65.4) 

This project has been conducted since 2002 with the primary objective of estimating the relative 

abundance and distribution of native fishes between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek. These efforts are 

concentrated in the mainstem reach above and below the mouth of the LCR because this is where the bulk 

of the Grand Canyon humpback chub population is found (Paukert and others, 2006). However, sampling 

is conducted according to a stratified random design that distributes the effort broadly throughout the 

entire river from Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek as well as focusing on index sites that correspond with 

humpback chub aggregations, including the LCR Inflow reach, RM 57–65.4. Sampling is conducted 

using hoop nets and trammel nets. 

Sampling with hoop nets is expected to continue for the foreseeable future in conjunction with 

mechanical removal of nonnative fishes in this reach. Hoop nets have yielded useful data regarding the 

juvenile humpback chub in this reach, so deployment of this gear is recommended for continuation. 

Deployment of trammel nets is expected in the fall in future years provided mainstem water temperatures 

do not rise above 20 °C. Cooler water temperatures were found to have lower negative impacts on native 

Colorado River fish captured with trammel nets (Hunt, 2008). 

Mainstem Monitoring of the Grand Canyon Fish Community (Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek) 

This project collects mainstem Colorado River fish community data from at least Lees Ferry to Diamond 

Creek. As time, personnel, and logistics permit, sampling continues downstream to the Grand Wash Cliffs 

(upper Lake Mead) in some years. The project employs boat-mounted electrofishing. Two passes with 

this method are deployed between February and April. A stratified random approach is used, but this 

project also samples the previously described aggregations of humpback chub. Data collected by this 

project supports the ASMR model of humpback chub abundance and trends. Nonnative species 

encountered are also documented. 

The 2009 PEP recommended that this project be continued, potentially dropping back to a single trip, 

especially if clear water for increased captures is present. The PEP recommended that additional 

mainstem monitoring should be added in the fall months to meet the information needs articulated by the 

GCDAMP and managers. To meet this recommendation, a mainstem trammel netting trip will be 

deployed in approximately September. Deployment of this gear requires net sets of 2 hours or less, and 

revisiting the sets to remove captured fish. Assuming mainstem water temperatures of 20 °C or less, 

trammel nets will be deployed with motorboat support. Site selection will account for regular (annual or 

semi-annual) visits to documented humpback chub aggregation reaches, tributary mouths, and stratified 

random sites to represent geomorphic reaches. 

The 2009 PEP recommended another mainstem monitoring trip be conducted to deploy multiple gear 

types. Assuming the 2010 data analyses support the protocol shifts recommended by the PEP, time and 

personnel will permit the deployment of a multiple-gear monitoring trip. This trip will be an oarsupported trip deployed in October to investigate the fish community composition during the time of year 

when water temperatures released from Glen Canyon Dam are near their highest for the year. As with the 

September trammel net monitoring, this trip will monitor at humpback chub aggregation sites, tributary 

mouths, and stratified random sites on a multiyear rotation. This trip will also deploy seines in a sample 

of backwaters in each geomorphic reach. The objective of the multigear monitoring is to determine 

presence/absence of new or expanding populations of nonnative fishes, as well as investigating possible 

expansions of the humpback chub aggregations. 

56 
1 Annual Assessment of the Overall LCR Humpback Chub Population Abundance and Recruitment 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

GCMRC plans that the updating ASMR model continues to be the method for gathering and assessing the 

humpback chub mark-recapture data. The model results have been published in peer-reviewed reports at 

approximately 2-year intervals; the 2009 PEP recommended a 3–5 year reporting interval for updates of 

the ASMR. The ASMR model was most recently updated with the work of Coggins and Walters (2009) 

using data through 2008. GCMRC projects that the next update of the ASMR model will be conducted to 

support a full Grand Canyon resource assessment in 2011, and the following update would be conducted 

in 2014. 

Periodic Assessment of Asian Tapeworm Infestation Rates of Humpback Chub in the LCR 

As recommended by Linder and others (2008), the infestation rates of humpback chub by Asian 

tapeworm will be estimated at approximately 5-year intervals. 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule 

The PEP for Grand Canyon fish was conducted in May 2009. Their final report is anticipated by the end 

of FY2009. GCMRC has initiated implementation of the PEP recommendations in FY2010 and 2011, 

with additional data analysis in FY2010. Release of a core monitoring report for native fishes is planned 

for FY2011. 

57 
Goal 3: Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and 

advisable 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

Statement of Problem 

Some of the vertebrate species no longer found in Grand Canyon are known from historical records. At 

least two species of fish listed as endangered conducted part of their life history in Grand Canyon but are 

currently extirpated. These species are the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2002b, 2008b, and references therein) and razorback sucker (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002c, 2008c, and references therein). Both of these species, but especially Colorado 

pikeminnow, traveled long distances in their lifetimes, and so may currently be limited by the installation 

of dams from carrying out critical life history functions (Bestgen and others, 2007). Monitoring 

specifically for Colorado pikeminnow has not been conducted because of the expectation that the dams 

have excluded this long-distance traveler, so it is not considered further here. Because razorback sucker 

may have been present in Grand Canyon as recently as the 1980s, and suitable habitat may still exist, the 

focus of recent, preliminary restoration efforts has been on the razorback sucker. 

The river otter (Lutra canadensis) has also been documented from Grand Canyon (Burt, 1976) but is not a 

current resident and so could be considered an extirpated species that may be considered for 

reintroduction, as feasible and advisable. Monitoring for river otter has not been occurring, and so is not 

addressed in this text, but it might be reconsidered at a later date. 

Restoring extinct species to the Colorado River would provide evidence of at least a partial return to 

natural ecosystem function, consistent with the GCPA. Such restoration would also be consistent with 

National Park Service goals of maintaining natural ecosystems in parks for the enjoyment of present and 

future generations. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

The most active current (2009) efforts to restore extirpated species are the investigations of the potential 

to restore razorback sucker to the Colorado River in and above Lake Mead. This effort is currently in an 

experimental phase, and GCMRC is exploring restoration potential with a large group of agencies. 

Potential support to the effort from GCMRC could take the form of providing aerial photography of the 

region, monitoring physical habitat characteristics, or monitoring biological characteristics. Biological 

characteristics could include the aquatic food base, the fish community, and presence and composition of 

riparian vegetation. These activities could be conducted in the future if cooperators agree on a research 

and monitoring approach. 

Links to Other Program Elements 

Successful reestablishment of extirpated species into the Colorado River or the associated riparian habitat 

would be evidence of some return to historic ecosystem conditions. Restoring ecosystem conditions 

increases the probability that the CRE can provide ecosystem services to humans, including water supply, 

recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment. 

58 
1 Core Monitoring Information Needs 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

The core monitoring information need for goal 3 is determination of the feasibility and advisability of 

restoring species into the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. The complete list of CMINs is shown in 

Appendix A. 

Summary of Previous Work 

A small population of razorback sucker has persisted in Lake Mead, downstream from Grand Canyon 

(Albrecht and others, 2008). Razorback suckers have been documented spawning in Lake Mead, so there 

is the potential that they could make use of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon for at least some phases 

of their life cycle. Scientists and managers are exploring potential strategies for expanding the current 

range of razorback sucker to include the Colorado River upstream from Lake Mead. Investigations to date 

have been conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Nevada 

Department of Wildlife, and their contractors and cooperators. Grand Canyon National Park and GCMRC 

are working with existing researchers to explore the potential of expanding the current razorback sucker 

distribution upstream in the Colorado River. 

The 2007 Biological Opinion for the coordinated operations of Lakes Powell and Mead (a.k.a., the 

shortage criteria BO) calls for the Bureau of Reclamation to determine whether the Colorado River above 

Lake Mead is suitable for razorback sucker. With additional support, GCMRC could expand existing 

monitoring efforts to the following: 

• Extend aerial overflight beyond Diamond Creek downstream to Lake Mead to map potential 

habitat 

• Monitor and model food base below Diamond Creek 

• Monitor fish community below Diamond Creek 

Agency representatives met in March 2009 to discuss these and other potential projects that may support 

razorback sucker habitat suitability studies. A broader work plan is being considered, but there was 

general agreement that monitoring of this population in Lake Mead in the near future is important for 

understanding how the population is behaving and the potential for additional expansion. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Geographic Scope

The project’s exact geographic extent remains to be determined, but generally includes the Colorado 

River at and above Lake Mead. It may be expanded if species other than razorback sucker are considered.

Temporal Scope 

In the absence of a longer term plan there is no established time frame for reintroduction of razorback 

sucker or any other species. 

59 
1 Methods

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

As noted above, the current monitoring for razorback sucker is conducted in Lake Mead. A number of 

agencies—including the Bureau of Reclamation, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Nevada Department 

of Wildlife, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and GCMRC—are 

discussing opportunities for learning about the feasibility and advisability of razorback sucker repatriation 

efforts for the Colorado River, upstream from Lake Mead. These agencies met in March 2009 and agreed 

that the monitoring in Lake Mead sponsored by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Bureau of 

Reclamation would continue at least through 2009. 

Estimated Annual Funding for Extirpated Species Core Monitoring Program 

Because projects for razorback sucker monitoring upstream from Lake Mead have not yet been defined, 

funding for core monitoring has not yet been estimated. 

60 
Goal 4: Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout 

above the Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the 

maintenance of viable populations of native fish 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Problem Statement 

The GCDAMP desires to maintain a viable sport fishery for rainbow trout (RBT) between Glen Canyon 

Dam and the Paria River (the Lees Ferry reach); this fishery is a popular recreational activity for local and 

visiting anglers. Rainbow trout stocked into this reach of the Colorado River have reproduced (Korman 

and others, 2005), but growth and recruitment into the adult population is variable from year to year 

(Coggins, 2008; Korman and Campana, 2009; Arizona Game and Fish Department, unpublished data). 

Results of monitoring conducted by the AZGFD suggest that recruitment may be density dependent, as 

relative catch rates are inversely proportional to RBT condition. The density dependence of this 

population is further supported by the observation that young RBT survive at higher percentages in the 

absence of a large adult population than when large numbers of adults are present (Korman, 2009). 

Recent studies conclude that RBT growth and survival are, at least partially, dependent on habitat 

conditions below the dam, which in turn are controlled by dam operations (Korman and Campana, 2009). 

Monitoring of all life stages of this species informs our understanding of their population dynamics which 

in turn informs recommendations for dam operations that may best meet GCDAMP goal 4. Monitoring of 

the Lees Ferry RBT population is an important component of ongoing efforts to assess the impacts of this 

species on humpback chub and other native fishes. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

Monitoring of the numbers, body condition, and growth of RBT has revealed an inverse relationship 

between these two variables. Both are important to managers because number of individuals caught, and 

size and condition (relative health, or plumpness) of individuals caught are important measures of angling 

success. Therefore, monitoring includes collecting field data necessary to compute relative abundance of 

rainbow trout, measured as catch per unit effort, and depletion estimates of nearshore densities, a 

condition factor. Relative spawning success and growth rates of young fish have been evaluated with an 

experimental program studying early life stages of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach. Measures of density can 

be extrapolated from catch per effort divided by area sampled. 

The 2009 Grand Canyon Fishes PEP recommended that the fish monitoring in the Lees Ferry reach also 

include monitoring of nonnatives. This recommendation reflects the occasional captures of nonnative 

fishes that may occur because of passage through GCD due to illegal stocking. Randomized sampling will 

report presence/absence of nonnative fishes, with more frequent sampling at known nonnative 

aggregations, such as the so-called Carp Pond backwater. 

Links to Other Program Elements 

Measures of the status and trends of the Lees Ferry RBT fishery inform management decisions regarding 

this fishery. Rainbow trout exhibit only limited piscivory (that is, fish eating), but when their numbers are 

elevated they may have a measurable effect on native fishes in Grand Canyon (Coggins, 2008 and 

references therein). When GCMRC and cooperating agencies removed RBT and brown trout (Salmo 

trutta) from the mainstem Colorado near the mouth of the LCR, the reach was often repopulated by RBT 

entering the reach from upstream (Coggins, 2008). Because of the potential for negative impacts to native 

61 
fishes from piscivory, and also from competition for food resources (Valdez and Ryel, 1995), it is 

important to understand the status and trends of the Lees Ferry RBT population. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The GCDAMP monitoring needs for the Lees Ferry RBT population call for annual assessment of the 

population, including population estimate, growth rate, condition, and density. A complete list of CMINs 

is provided in Appendix A. 

Summary of Previous Work 

Monitoring of the adult RBT population in the Lees Ferry reach is led by the AZGFD, and the GCMRC 

participates in this effort by contributing to data analysis, by storing data, and through logistics support. 

Scientists and managers studying this population have realized that many of their questions regarding the 

population had to do with the earliest life history stages, so GCMRC entered into a cooperative agreement 

with Ecometric, Inc., a private contractor whose studies have led to a better understanding of where and 

when redds (rainbow trout nests for egg-laying) are produced, the relative growth and survival of young 

RBT under given dam operations, how the eggs and larvae survive in response to flows, and where early 

life stages of RBT are to be found in the Lees Ferry reach (Korman, 2009, Korman and Campana, 2009). 

These early life stage monitoring techniques were reviewed by the 2009 PEP that did not recommend 

continuation of the young life stage studies. However, the early life stage work will be maintained 

specifically to gage the response of these life stages to specific dam releases. 

Summary of Monitoring Program 

Geographic Scope 

Monitoring of the RBT population occurs in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River, from Glen 

Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry, near the mouth of the Paria River. 

Temporal Scope 

Rainbow trout monitoring has typically been conducted 3–5 times per year between February and 

November. Monitoring of spawning and juvenile survival and growth has involved monthly sampling 

between February and September. 

62 
1 Methods 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

A regular monitoring program, deploying from 3 to 5 monitoring trips per year, has been implemented by 

the AZGFD since 1991, with support by GCMRC since 1996. The number of annual monitoring trips has 

been dependent on the activities and actions planned for any given year; for example, more RBT 

monitoring trips were conducted in 2008 to increase understanding of the RBT response to the March 

2008 high flow experimental release from GCD (Hilwig and Makinster, accepted). 

Typical RBT monitoring has included electrofishing at 25 or more stratified random and 9 fixed transects 

in an augmented, serially alternating sampling design (Urquhart and others, 1998). Each transect is 

sampled with single pass, boat-mounted electrofishing. Captured fish are measured and weighed and 

inspected for tags. In the fixed transects, RBT greater than 150 mm total length are implanted with a PIT 

tag and their adipose fins are clipped for future assessment of PIT tag retention rate. In addition, RBT 

more than 200 mm in total length are tagged with individually numbered external Floy tags to help assess 

RBT movement. 

The 2009 PEP recommended that the current level of effort being conducted to monitor RBT in the Lees 

Ferry reach should be redirected. The change of direction would include the following: 

• Conduct randomized monitoring but discontinue the fixed site monitoring. Both efforts 

do not appear to be necessary in every year because the multiyear trends in both efforts 

consistently yield similar catch per unit effort results. 

• Additional randomized monitoring should now include sampling for other nonnative 

fishes as well as RBT. 

• Additional monitoring efforts should include monitoring of known nonnative fish 

populations, such as the Carp Pond backwater. 

For future years the Lees Ferry reach should monitor all species present—RBT as well as other species. 

To assess the responses of fish in this reach specifically to experimental dam releases, the fall steady 

flows 2008-2012, the young RBT assessments of redds, larvae, and young-of-year will continue. To the 

extent practicable, Lees Ferry fish monitoring will extend downstream from the mouth of the Paria River, 

but not farther than Badger Rapid (approximately RM 6). Additional collections downstream of the Paria 

River are intended to investigate whether RBT and other fish species are moving downstream of the input 

of this major tributary. 

63 
1 Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab Ambersnail 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

Statement of Problem 

The Kanab ambersnail is a federally listed endangered terrestrial mollusk that inhabits moist habitats, 

often near water sources. It is naturally found at Vaseys Paradise, a perched spring and associated wetland 

that cascades off the canyon walls into the Colorado River in Grand Canyon near RM 32. Because of the 

snail’s legal status and the potential for the population and its habitat to be affected by dam operations, 

this species has been included as a goal by the GCDAMP and monitoring of the species habitat is 

required by the Colorado River Management Plan and the Biological Opinion associated with operations 

of Glen Canyon Dam. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

Because of their small size, Kanab ambersnails are difficult, if not impossible, to monitor directly through 

population demographic approaches such as mark/recapture. Population estimates can vary widely from 

one survey to the next, sometimes by one or more orders of magnitude. Working with cooperators, led by 

the AZGFD, the GCMRC has continued attempts to count individual snails, but the GCMRC and its 

cooperators have also recognized that these counts are notoriously variable, so we have also instituted a 

protocol of monitoring the vascular plants cardinal monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis) and watercress 

(Nasturium officianale) on which the snails are commonly found at Vaseys Paradise. The parameters 

reported for this species and its habitat are extent of habitat area at Vaseys Paradise, total vegetated area, 

vegetated area above and below the 45,000 cfs stage elevation, and presence of Kanab ambersnails in 

each established plot. 

Links to Other Program Elements 

The habitat for Kanab ambersnail, primarily cardinal monkeyflower and watercress, may sometimes grow 

down the limestone substrate to near the river surface. When experimental high flows are released from 

Glen Canyon Dam, this habitat may extend below the elevation of the highest discharge water surface 

level. Therefore, Kanab ambersail habitat is most directly related to Glen Canyon Dam operations 

associated with high-flow experiments as well as monthly volumes. High-flow experiments that removed 

vegetation at Vaseys Paradise have occurred in 1996, 2004, and 2008. For the last two experimental high 

flows (2004 and 2008), personnel collected and temporarily moved the plants upslope at Vaseys Paradise 

to a location higher than the peak flow level during the flow test. When water levels returned to normal 

diurnal dam operations and discharge volumes (a matter of days), the plants were returned and were able 

to reestablish and thrive, again providing snail habitat. The springs at Vaseys Paradise are also identified 

as culturally important by some Native American tribes and have an aesthetic value to visitors along the 

river corridor. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The core monitoring needs for Kanab ambersnail have been focused on tracking the status and trends of 

this species habitat at Vaseys Paradise. The complete list of CMINs is provided in Appendix A. 

64 
1 Summary of Previous Work 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

A systematic approach to monitoring the Kanab ambersnail and its habitat has been developed largely by 

the AZGFD with support from the GCDAMP, administered by the GCMRC. The monitoring approach, 

modeled after that of Stevens and others (1997b), has been used to monitor the Kanab ambersnail 

population in Grand Canyon, especially at Vaseys Paradise, for more than 10 years as of 2005 (Sorensen, 

2005). 

The AZGFD has produced a series of reports that document their efforts to monitor this species (e.g., 

Sorensen, 2005). The species and its habitat have been conserved during experimental high-flow events 

by physically moving, then replacing, the vegetation that provides the habitat for the species at Vaseys 

Paradise. The increase or decrease of habitat is influenced by discharge from the springs and river 

discharge volumes. Browsing animals such as bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) have also been known to 

affect vegetated areas occupied by the Kanab ambersnail. Both the monitoring and conservation actions 

have not only advanced understanding of the species’ habitat needs but also provided compliance with 

USFWS requirements to protect the species. 

Kanab ambersnails were listed as threatened based on the taxonomy completed in the late 1980s that 

suggested only a few populations of this animal existed in southern Utah and northern Arizona. However, 

unpublished data now in review suggest that the snails currently identified as Kanab ambersnail may in 

fact be members of a species of Oxyloma that is distributed throughout much of the United States and 

Canada in wet, terrestrial habitats. The USFWS is awaiting the results of this taxonomic review before 

concluding their species status review. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Geographic Scope 

The project location is confined to Vaseys Paradise (RM 32) 

Temporal Scope 

Habitat area is surveyed in the fall and a census of the snails is conducted in spring and fall. 

Methods 

Monitoring follows the methods developed by Stevens and others (1997b) and also incorporate timed 

presence/absence and nearest-neighbor snail counts. In addition, the fall sampling includes sampling the 

upper vegetation zone snail population above the 100,000 cfs (2,833 cms) stage discharge height. Area of 

habitat patches, measured in the fall, are determined using traditional land survey methods that include a 

total station setup and rod-man selecting points that define individual habitat patches. 

The method of Stevens and others (1997b) includes randomized 20 cm diameter subsamples of 

vegetation. Parameters recorded include plant species, plant height, soil moisture content, and distance of 

the subsample from the edge of the patch. Live snails or snail shells encountered in the subsample are 

measured for length and assigned to species (other snail species also inhabit the springs). The timed 

sampling and nearest-neighbor sampling is used to census snail numbers within patches. Snail numbers 

from sampling are compared between years to provide an idea of the stability of the population, but not 

population size. Habitat area is the primary parameter that is monitored for Kanab ambersnail. 

65 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Field data are entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and/or Access database. A summary report of 

these activities and monitoring results are provided by the AZGFD. 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule 

Monitoring of the Vaseys Paradise population, and also of an experimental translocated population 

downstream at Elves Chasm, is anticipated to continue in 2009, 2010, and 2011. This timing should allow 

the USFWS to receive outstanding documentation, especially Carver and others (in prep.), associated 

with an anticipated process to remove the species from the Federal Endangered Species list based on a 

taxonomic change. The GCDAMP should take advantage of this time period to determine if a locally rare, 

though broadly distributed, species such as the ambersnail continues to be a resource of concern for the 

GCDAMP. Grand Canyon National Park has indicated that they will continue to be concerned with, and 

manage for, the fate of this animal and its limited habitat, no matter its legal status. The GCDAMP may 

also choose to contribute to the protection of this limited resource. 

66 
Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, 

including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Statement of Problem 

The installation and operation of Glen Canyon Dam has changed the plant community composition along 

the river corridor from historic times. Where regular, large floods historically scoured the riparian zone, 

decreasing or eliminating plants along the water’s edge, now the more constrained flow of the river has 

allowed for expansion and establishment of native and nonnative plant species (Stevens and Waring, 

1986; Turner and Karpiscak, 1980; Ralston, SCORE, chap 5, 2005). Plants that were historically 

distributed along the historic flood levels (~85,000 cfs and greater) and away from the banks of the river 

are aging and showing signs of reduced recruitment because these locations no longer receive disturbance 

from floods (Anderson and Ruffner, 1987). Another result of reduced flooding has been the expansion of 

marsh communities (Stevens and others, 1995). Although these communities existed historically, they 

have expanded in the absence of regular flooding and scouring. The GCMRC projects within goal 6 are 

designed to better understand the effects of dam, climate, and other factors on the plant and animal 

distribution and diversity of the riparian zone. 

An increased understanding of the riparian zone in the era following installation and operation of the dam 

is important for determining whether, and to what degree, the observed changes, especially in plant 

distributions, are driven by human or naturally caused factors, or both. Increased understanding supports 

efforts that may help protect sensitive or rare vegetation types, such as the upland mesquites or the 

lowland marshes. Both the plants and the animals of the riparian zone have cultural significance for native 

peoples, so understanding natural and human-caused influences on these resources increases the potential 

for developing effective conservation strategies. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

The GCMRC approach to monitoring the riparian ecosystem in Grand Canyon is diverse, reflecting the 

diverse resources found in this habitat. The principal resources to be monitored are vascular plants, 

arthropods (invertebrate animals including insects, spiders, mites, and other species), and to a more 

limited extent, birds. The GRCA currently monitors birds in association with their CRMP. Bird 

monitoring will be done in a manner that augments current monitoring of GRCA. GRCA has assumed 

leadership for monitoring the endangered southwest willow flycatcher in Grand Canyon, and monitoring 

this species is not addressed further here.

Riparian Vegetation 

The distribution and composition of the plant community is monitored using remotely collected data that 

are processed and supplemented with field verification and data collection. The remote data will be used 

to assess the area occupied by overstory plants, including both native and nonnative vegetation. Field 

verification of the dominant cover class identified through image processing of remote data also records 

the presence of understory species that cannot be identified from overflight data. Reporting variables 

include composition (including ratio of native/nonnative species), distribution and area of marsh, new 

high water zone, old high water zone, and sand beach communities. 

67 
1 Arthropods and Birds 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

The goal of monitoring ground-dwelling arthropods (e.g., beetles, ants, spiders) and birds is to provide 

status and trends data on key species and community composition as one of several indicators of 

ecosystem condition. Bird habitat sampling will involve point counts at fixed sites that include current 

GRCA sample sites as well as larger vegetated sites. Sampling for ground-dwelling arthropods will 

involve pitfall trap sampling at fixed sites within the new and old high water zones. The traps will be 

checked, emptied, and reset for sampling on a monthly basis in the spring and summer. Sampling 

frequency is based on other sampling efforts in the Southwestern United States (Cobb and Delph, 2005). 

Seasonal and annual trends in composition and abundance for arthropods and birds will be reported 

relative to the old and new high water zones, and the relationships among arthropod or bird measured 

parameters and vegetation structure and composition, soil stability, and soil moisture will also be 

evaluated. Reported variables include abundance, richness, diversity, and distribution in old and new high 

water zones as well as relationships among community elements.

Links to Other Program Elements 

The riparian plant community not only fixes carbon through photosynthesis, thereby producing plant 

tissue for use by other organisms, but also provides habitat for animals (both aquatic and terrestrial 

animals) and humans, and has implications for extent of associated sandbar stability. Native American 

tribes ascribe cultural resource values to many of the native terrestrial plants and animals. The link 

between vegetative production, richness and diversity, and these other resources is the response of 

vegetation to changes in operations through an increase or decrease of vegetated area and other 

parameters of vegetation change. 

The composition and abundance of riparian vegetation, arthropods and birds provides links in assessing 

the overall condition of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Information on the status and trends of grounddwelling arthropod and bird assemblages integrates with monitoring data relating to (1) vegetation 

composition and structure, (2) soil stability and grain size, (3) upland hydrologic function, and (4) 

campable area. Arthropod values provide a linking dataset between the aquatic food base and diets of 

terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates such as rainbow trout and humpback chub. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The core monitoring needs for goal 6 are tracking the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of 

the riparian and marsh habitats below Glen Canyon Dam; tracking the abundance and distribution of 

nonnative plants along the riparian corridor; and monitoring southwestern willow flycatcher and its food 

base, predominantly arthropods (Drost and others, 2003; Wiesenborn and Heydon, 2007). The complete 

list of CMINs is found in Appendix A. 

Summary of Previous Work 

The GCMRC goal 6 projects since 1996 have focused on increasing our knowledge about the plant 

community composition of the riparian zone and how vegetation responds to changes in dam operations. 

Animals in this zone have also been the subject of GCMRC research projects intended to lead to core 

monitoring (Spence, 2006). The Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring (TEM) project was initiated in 2001 

and a final report was completed in 2006 (Kearsley and others, 2006). The project was conducted in 

response to PEP recommendations (Urquhart and others, 2000) to develop integrated monitoring 

approaches for the terrestrial ecosystem. Key findings related to vegetation response to general operations 

indicate that vegetation below the 35,000 cfs stage elevation responds to both operations and local 

68 
weather, and vegetation above this elevation is mostly affected by local precipitation (Kearsely and 

others, 2006). These tendencies change under high flow or low steady flow conditions (Kearsley and 

Ayers, 1999; Porter, 2002). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

Not surprisingly, richness and vegetated cover is related to water availability. Values associated with both 

of these parameters for vegetation generally increased at the 25,000 cfs stage elevation and gradually 

declined with increasing stage elevation (Kearsley and others, 2006). Vegetated cover, structure, and area 

are linked to bird abundances (Holmes and others, 2005) such that increases in these parameters are 

associated with increases in bird abundances and diversity. Birds utilize the structure for nesting habitat, 

and the diversity of plant species provides varied food resources for their diet (Yard and others, 2004). 

Arthropods perform essential ecosystem functions such as decomposition, nutrient recycling, and 

pollination, and are an important food resource not only for other invertebrate species but also for higher 

level organisms. Their small size and rapid population growth rates result in their being responsive to 

both fine-scale spatial variation and short temporal scales. Consequently, arthropods are typically useful 

indicators of environmental change. Arthropods are likely to respond rapidly to management practices, 

potentially informing these decisions faster compared to longer-lived organisms. An inventory of 

arthropods for subsequent monitoring was initiated in the TEM project (Kearsley and others, 2006); the 

results of the inventory and distribution analysis indicate that abundance and diversity varies between 

zones and that there are several indicator species within each zone that can be used to monitor change 

within zones (Cobb and others, in prep.). The inventory samples provide a reference collection for a pilot 

monitoring project being conducted in Glen Canyon in 2009. 

A final effort associated with terrestrial monitoring includes incorporating the use of data taken remotely 

(overflight imagery) for the purpose of assessing landscape-scale changes in riparian habitat. Remotely 

sensed data collected in 2002 were utilized by GCMRC to construct the first digital canyonwide plant 

community map of the Colorado River corridor below the dam (Ralston and others, 2008). The map 

allows the quantification of vegetated area cover within the new high water zone, old high water zone, 

sand beach community, and marshes. The use of sequential remotely sensed datasets (e.g., 2005, 2009) 

allows for change detection on a long-term basis relative to long-term operations. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Geographic Scope 

This monitoring encompasses the Colorado River ecosystem from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to 

the westernmost boundary of Grand Canyon (RM -15 to 278). 

Temporal Scope 

Overflight data will be collected approximately every 4 years; ground-based vegetation sampling will 

coincide with overflights. Ground-based event monitoring will be conducted to supplement the 

quadrennial sampling as needed. Arthropod and bird monitoring would occur annually (April–

September). 

69 
1 Methods 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Riparian Vegetation 

In 2009 and beyond, the GCMRC will continue to build on the work of Ralston and others (2008) by 

using quadrennial overflight data for the purpose of landscape-scale change detection. This will allow 

comparisons between years and an assessment of whether the abundance, distribution, and area of the 

riparian and marsh communities has changed between these years. Following recommendations of the 

2007 PEP, the GCMRC intends to begin a schedule of vegetation sampling beginning in 2009 that 

coincides with overflights as well as biennial sampling. Sampling will consist of 100 sq m plots along the 

river that incorporate geomorphic features (e.g., debris fans, eddy bars, return channels) and hydrologic 

zones (fluctuating, new high water, old high water). Plot data will include presence/absence of species 

encountered and cover estimates, using a categorical cover scale, for each species. These data provide 

composition, abundance, richness, and diversity for all species as well as cover for the most dominant 

species within geomorphic and hydrologic contexts. Native and nonnative species will be identified and 

intersite variability will be assessed. These data are also used to identify alliance level vegetation classes 

for large-scale mapping. 

An agglomerative cluster analysis using Sorenson’s distance measure and Ward’s method for linkage 

(McCune and Grace, 2002) will be used on the plot data to identify vegetation classes for mapping. 

Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (Minchin, 1987; McCune and Grace, 2002) will be used to explore 

compositional patterns in the vegetation and to determine assemblage groups. Sampling will also be 

conducted around high-flow experiments (HFEs) or other large-scale operational changes (as they occur) 

that might affect riparian and marsh vegetation to evaluate short-term effects of these operational 

changes. Funding for monitoring conducted in association with large experiments such as HFEs is 

anticipated to come from experimental funds, not the annual GCDAMP work plan designated for 

monitoring. 

Change detection will be conducted using post-classification comparison (Singh, 1989) because we want 

to identify how much each vegetation class changes and the result of that change (e.g., arrowweed to bare 

ground or bare ground to coyote willow/Baccharis). Post-classification comparison requires independent 

classification of imagery followed by a comparison between classifications to determine the pixels with a 

change in classification between the dates. This methodology is preferred to image differencing because 

the sensors used for image collection may change. Ground truthing following map production will be 

used to accurately determine how areas changed. The comparisons in themselves should accurately 

determine area change, but may not accurately identify how (Weismiller and others, 1977; Stow and 

others, 1980). A change matrix will be used to represent area changes and the nature of change between 

classes occurring between years. These change matrices will be prepared for each zone and combined to 

present change within each geomorphic reach, since each reach can be compositionally different. 

Arthropods and Birds 

Beginning in 2010, the GCMRC intends to return to a program of terrestrial monitoring beyond 

vegetation to be conducted in coordination with GRCA’s bird monitoring program. The focus of this 

monitoring is to be ground-dwelling arthropods, consistent with the recommendations from the 2007 

terrestrial PEP panel (Cooper and others, 2008), but pending the outcome of a pilot project in Glen 

Canyon, and bird monitoring. Bird monitoring would augment the bird sampling (point counts) currently 

conducted along the corridor by GRCA to include larger vegetated sites not currently monitored by 

GRCA. Analysis of bird data will be dependent on GRCA reporting. Arthropod monitoring would be 

conducted using pitfall traps (pending coordination with GRCA) that are emptied on a monthly basis in 

association with bird monitoring trips and other resource monitoring trips throughout the spring and early 

70 
fall. A protocol for this work has been developed and implemented for Mesa Verde National Park (Cobb 

and Delph, 2005) and is being piloted in Glen Canyon in 2009. Arthropod identification will be 

conducted in the laboratory using voucher specimens from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring (TEM) 

project. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

With respect to analysis of arthropod samples, three types of statistical analyses will be used to test for 

effects of water zone on ground-dwelling arthropods. First repeated-measures ANOVA tests will be used 

to test for differences in arthropod abundances and species richness. A multiresponse permutation 

procedure will be used to determine arthropod community difference among water zones, and nonmetric 

multidimensional scaling scatter plot (Clark, 1993) will be used to examine similarities of arthropod 

assemblages among water zones based on Bray-Curtis distances (Beals, 1984; McCune and Beals, 1993). 

Finally, a species indicator analysis using a Monte Carlo test of significance will be conducted to 

determine if specific arthropod taxa are responding to water zone. 

Program Status and Implementation Schedule 

GCMRC has initiated the monitoring activities described in the Summary above for FY2009, 2010, and 

2011, consistent with terrestrial PEP recommendations. 

71 
Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to 

achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Statement of Problem 

The operation of Glen Canyon Dam and water quality conditions in Lake Powell strongly affect 

streamflow and water quality conditions on the downstream Colorado River. Dam operations are 

determined by regional climate, laws and policies governing water transfer volumes for various time 

scales, and consideration for downstream resources. Currently, normal dam operations include diurnal 

fluctuations in flow that are large in comparison to typical pre-dam conditions but lack the monthly 

variation and annual floods that were characteristic of the natural flow regime (Howard and Dolan, 1981; 

Topping and others, 2003). Because the dam and its large upstream reservoir block the supply of 

sediment received from upstream sources, suspended sediment concentrations below the dam are much 

lower than in the pre-dam period, resulting in a fine sediment (sand and finer) deficit in the river (Topping 

and others, 2000a, 2000b), as evidenced by observations of net sand export from Grand Canyon during 

periods of normal dam operations and low tributary sediment inputs (Topping and others, 2000a). The 

temperature regime has also been transformed from seasonally variable (0–30°C) to uniformly cold 

(~9°C; Voichick and Wright, 2007). These streamflow and water quality dynamics affect most aspects of 

the CRE in Grand Canyon and, thereby, directly or indirectly affect most resources that are a focus of 

adaptive management efforts. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

The key signals that monitoring must detect are the status of the sediment budget (on a time scale of 

weeks up to 3–5 years), and both short- and long-term trends in water temperature and other water quality 

parameters. To ensure detection of these signals, the parameters selected for long-term core monitoring 

are water stage and discharge (streamflow) and selected water quality parameters, which are water 

temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment concentration, suspended sediment grain size, dissolved 

oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductance (salinity). Because inputs to the system cause 

downstream changes in these parameters, monitoring must occur at multiple locations in the CRE. To 

provide predictive capability, some parameters must be measured in Lake Powell and tributary streams. 

Links to Other Program Elements 

The streamflow record is a fundamental monitoring requirement that is linked to all other resources. An 

accurate streamflow record is necessary to (1) provide the legal record of water transfer from the upper to 

the lower Colorado River basin, (2) monitor compliance with the 1996 Record of Decision for the Glen 

Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, termed the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow operation, (3) 

provide empirical data for temperature, suspended sediment transport, and other water quality models, 

and (4) associate dam release patterns with observed aquatic and riparian habitat conditions as well as the 

human recreation experience. 

Measurements of suspended sediment concentration and grain size are required to calculate the sediment 

mass balance (budget), which is used to determine whether individual channel segments (48–97 km in 

length) are accumulating, evacuating, or conserving sediment over time scales of several weeks up to 

approximately 5 years, depending on actual tributary sediment inputs and dam operations. This tracking 

of the “sediment bank account” is required to determine the extent to which dam operations cause 

depletion of sand storage and when tributary inputs result in conditions that are favorable for possible 

72 
high flows from GCD to redistribute sediment from the channel to build sandbars at higher elevations in 

the eddies and on the channel margins. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Temperature records are necessary to develop quantifications of aquatic productivity and aquatic habitat 

conditions, which are essential to understanding the dynamics of native and nonnative fish populations. 

Records of the other water quality parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and specific 

conductance, are required to understand aquatic ecosystem conditions and as input for aquatic ecosystem 

models. Monitoring of these parameters in the GCD forebay and throughout Lake Powell provides 

necessary input for models that predict water temperature and water quality in the downstream CRE. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The core-monitoring information needs for streamflow and water quality are as follows: 

• Monitor flow releases from GCD under all operating conditions, particularly related to flow 

duration, upramp, and downramp conditions. This monitoring supports nearly all other research 

and monitoring activities downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, including compliance with the 

1996 Record of Decision related to the modified low fluctuating flow, occasional higher releases, 

such as the beach/habitat building flows, and other related experimental operations. 

• Monitor and track tributary sediment input volumes and grain-size characteristics. This 

monitoring should encompass the Paria River and LCR stations, in addition to other major 

tributaries like Kanab Creek and Havasu Creek. This monitoring is a necessary component of the 

sediment mass balance, in support of goals related to fine sediment storage and sandbar 

maintenance (goal 8). 

• Monitor and track mainstem Colorado River monthly sediment transport volumes and 

grain-size characteristics at the long-term USGS monitoring stations located at Lees Ferry, Grand 

Canyon, and Diamond Creek (RM 0, 87, and 226, respectively) and selected intermediate 

monitoring stations. This monitoring is also a necessary component of the fine sediment mass 

balance, in support of goals related to fine sediment storage and sandbar maintenance (goal 8). 

Spacing of measurement stations must allow computation of the fine sediment budget for river 

segments between 30 and 60 mi in length. 

• Monitor water temperature in the mainstem, backwaters, and near-shore areas throughout the 

CRE. This monitoring supports aquatic food availability and native fish and rainbow trout goals 

(goals 2 and 4). 

• Monitor seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH 

in the mainstem Colorado River. This monitoring supports aquatic food availability and fish 

goals (as above). 

• Monitor discharge and temperature of the mainstem Little Colorado River near the mouth. This 

monitoring supports aquatic food availability and fish goals (as above). 

• Monitor the status and trend of water quality releases from GCD. 

The complete list of CMINs is presented in Appendix A. 

73 
1 Summary of Previous Work 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

Lake Powell 

Lake Powell water quality has been monitored continuously from the early period of reservoir filling in 

1965 to the present. The initial monitoring program was conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation until 

1996, when it was continued by GCMRC with funding provided outside the scope of GCDAMP funds. 

Since 1990, monitoring of the entire reservoir has occurred quarterly in most years and monitoring of the 

forebay area, immediately upstream from Glen Canyon Dam, has occurred monthly. Continuous 

measurements of water quality have been made within the Glen Canyon Dam power plant and in the 

tailrace since 1988. Samples are collected from these sites on a monthly basis. 

A Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) review of the Integrated Water Quality Program was conducted in 

November 2000, resulting in several recommendations for integrating Lake Powell monitoring with other 

projects and incorporating the results of predictive modeling efforts (Jones and others, 2001). The water 

quality data from 42 years of Glen Canyon Dam’s history have been compiled into a relational database 

and these data were published in a 2009 USGS Data Series report (Vernieu, 2009). The published data 

will be made available through the GCMRC Web site (www.gcmrc.gov), along with annual updates. 

Colorado River Downstream from Lake Powell 

Systematic measurements of the discharge of water and the quality of water in the CRE began with the 

installation of the Lees Ferry gaging station by the USGS in May 1921 (Topping and others, 2003). Daily 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and temperature, and episodic measurements of other 

water-quality parameters were made by the USGS at multiple sites in the CRE until the early 1970s 

(Topping and others, 2000a). Concern over the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the CRE 

resulted in a new emphasis on measurements and modeling of water quality in the early 1980s (National 

Research Council, 1996). Research resulting from the 1996 high flow experiment revealed that multiyear 

accumulation of fine sediment within the CRE was difficult to achieve and that existing models for 

sediment transport could not be relied upon to predict sand flux for sediment budget computations (Rubin 

and others, 1998, 2002; Topping and others, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2005; Rubin and Topping, 2001; 

Wright and others, 2005). These findings demonstrated the need to return to a more rigorous 

measurement program to enable tracking of the status of the sediment budget. 

In August 1999, GCMRC initiated an intensive sediment sampling program that consisted of near daily 

suspended-sediment measurements at three gaging stations. Because substantial discharge-independent 

changes in suspended-sediment concentration were observed over timescales that could not be captured 

by this extremely costly quasi-daily program, laser and acoustic technologies for measuring suspendedsediment concentration and grain size were developed and tested beginning in 2001 (Melis and others, 

2003; Topping and others, 2004, 2006b). These tests resulted in the current “mass balance” monitoring 

program that includes measurements of stage, water temperature, conductivity, and suspended-sediment 

concentration and grain size at 15-minute intervals for five locations between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead. 

As a complement to the monitoring program predictive models have been developed and tested for stage, 

discharge, sediment-transport, and water temperature (Wiele and others, 2007; Anderson and Wright, 

2007; Wright and others, 2008a, 2008b). 

Because fine sediment has been a central resource concern below Glen Canyon Dam, the suspendedsediment transport component of downstream quality of water monitoring has been subjected to its own 

protocol review. Two PEP reviews of the sediment and flow elements of downstream integrated quality 

74 
of water (IQW) monitoring program have been conducted (Wohl and others, 1999, first sediment PEP 

report; Wohl and others, 2006, final sediment PEP report). An additional final review of the proposed 

program (GCDAMP Science Advisors, 2007) concluded that the proposed program (Topping and others, 

2007, part 4, sediment protocol recommendations for core monitoring plan) should be expected to 

effectively address core monitoring information needs and strategic science questions for fine sediment. 

Thus, the core-monitoring program described herein differs from the program that is currently being 

conducted only in that it includes some additional water quality elements that are proposed but are not 

currently funded. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Lake Powell 

It is anticipated that future monitoring will follow the established protocols that have been in place since 

1996. However, based on publication and analysis of historic data, some aspects of the monitoring 

program may be revised in 2010 to maintain cost-effectiveness and applicability of the information 

collected to other resources. Reservoir sampling generally involves travel to a particular site by boat, 

recording observations of ambient conditions, collecting a depth profile of physical water quality 

parameters through the water column, and collecting samples at selected depths for chemical and 

biological analyses (fig. 7). Sampling at tailwater and inflow sites involves continuous and/or 

instantaneous measurement of physical parameters and collections of discrete samples from the stream 

site. 

Lake Powell Water Quality 

Monitoring Locations

•Monthly forebay surveys

•Quarterly reservoir-wide surveys

•25-30 stations

•Profiles

•Major Ions - Nutrients

•Chlorophyll - Plankton

Long-term station

Figure 7. Monthly and quarterly survey locations for quality of water monitoring in Lake Powell.

75 
1 Colorado River Downstream from Lake Powell 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

The current proposed core monitoring program (Topping and others, 2007) consists of remotely collected 

measurements of (1) mass balance parameters of water stage, suspended sediment concentration, and 

suspended sediment grain size, and (2) additional water quality parameters of temperature, specific 

conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen concentration. Each of these parameters except dissolved 

oxygen is monitored at approximately 15-minute intervals at five mainstem stations located at RM 30, 61, 

89, 166, and 225 (fig. 8). Water stage, temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen 

concentration are monitored at RM 0. Dissolved oxygen concentration is also monitored immediately 

below Glen Canyon Dam and at RM 225. Also, on a near real-time basis, the concentration and grain-size 

distribution of the sand and finer material supplied by the major tributaries (Paria and Little Colorado 

Rivers) are computed using the real-time discharge data along with a geomorphically coupled flow and 

sediment-transport model (Topping, 1997). Sediment-transport measurements are collected on these two 

major tributaries using conventional and pump methodologies by the USGS Water Resources Discipline 

(WRD), Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers, and provided to the GCMRC laboratory. The 

mainstem stations are calibrated and maintained by field visits conducted at approximately 6-month 

intervals by GCMRC and USGS WRD Arizona Water Science Center. 

The core monitoring plan recommends monitoring at two additional tributary locations on Havasu Creek 

and Kanab Creek, but installation and operation of those stations has not been funded. The current core 

monitoring plan may need to be reevaluated and modified in the future to address changes in GCDAMP 

goals, such as a potential need for more specific temperature monitoring data for testing and future 

implementation of a temperature control device, if such a device were ever to be funded and built. 

Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

UMC

LMC

EGC

CGC

WGC

Sediment budget reach

UMC – upper Marble Canyon

LMC – lower Marble Canyon

EGC – eastern Grand Canyon

CGC – central Grand Canyon

WGC – western Grand Canyon

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Figure 8. Location map showing streamflow, non-sediment quality of water and suspended-sediment 

transport data collection sites and fine sediment budget reaches. The parameters of the modified low 

fluctuating flow dam operation (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) are monitored as mainstem flow at 

the Colorado River near Lees Ferry gage shown at the top of the upper Marble Canyon reach.

76 
Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main 

channel and along shorelines to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

Statement of Problem 

Closure of Glen Canyon Dam has resulted in at least a 90 percent reduction in sediment supply to the 

CRE in Grand Canyon (Topping and others, 2000a). Moreover, operations of the dam tend to result in a 

net export of sand and finer sediment in most years (Topping and others, 2000a). In response to this 

reduction in sand supply and the alteration of the natural hydrograph by dam operations, sandbars in 

Marble Canyon and the upstream part of Grand Canyon have substantially decreased in size (Schmidt and 

others, 2004) and are still in decline under normal power plant operations at the dam (Wright and others, 

2005). 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

The primary signal for fine sediment is the change in storage volume of the fine sediment below the 8,000 

cfs water stage. Although the quality of water monitoring program tracks the fluxes of fine sediment and 

enables calculation of the change in storage, the uncertainty in these estimates accumulates and restricts 

the use of that method to time scales of 5 years or less. The essential data to detect trends in storage 

change over periods longer than 5 years are repeat measurements of channel bathymetry that are 

compared to determine change in storage between the measurement intervals. Because of technological 

and logistical constraints (discussed below), additional monitoring is required to track trends in highelevation sand storage. For this monitoring, the essential parameters that must be measured are area and 

volume of sand exposed above the 8,000 cfs stage. 

Links to Other Program Elements 

Sediment forms the physical template for the CRE downstream from GCD. Sand and sandbars in and 

along the Colorado River were an integral part of the natural riverscape in Grand Canyon National Park, 

and are important for recreation, riparian habitat, native fish habitat, and many archaeological sites (Rubin 

and others, 2002; Wright and others, 2005). 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The core monitoring needs for sediment are the following: 

• Within eddies, track the fine sediment area, volume, and grain size changes at all stages, by reach. 

• In the main channel outside of eddies, track the area volume and grain size changes below the 

5,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

• Along the shorelines outside of eddies, track the area volume and grain size changes of sandbars 

above the 5,000 cfs stage. 

• Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and distribution. 

A complete list of CMINs is shown in Appendix A. 

77 
1 Summary of Previous Work 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

Growing concern about the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the CRE led to the initiation 

of systematic measurements of sandbars in the 1970s (Dolan and others, 1974; Howard, 1975; Howard 

and Dolan, 1981). This sandbar-monitoring program was revisited in the 1980s (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; 

Beus and others, 1992), and eventually led to the long-term sandbar monitoring program conducted by the 

former Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and later the GCMRC in cooperation with Northern Arizona 

University during the 1990s and 2000s (Hazel and others, 1999; Schmidt and others, 2004). Evaluation 

begun in the 1990s and finalized in the geomorphic synthesis of Schmidt and others (2004) indicated that 

the observations of change made during these site-based programs were not necessarily representative of 

changes in the fine-sediment resource over longer reaches of the Colorado River, because these programs 

surveyed relatively small areas and the variability between sites was large. Moreover, the fact that 

substantial positive changes in sediment volume were observed in these site-based programs during 

periods when no sediment entered the system called into question the value of sediment budgeting based 

on monitoring of small sites (Hazel and others, 2006). 

In contrast to the large variability within the site-based, long-term sandbar data, analysis of cross-section 

data collected by the USGS indicated near-universal scour of sediment from the CRE during the 1990s 

(Flynn and Hornewer, 2003). These observations led to the initiation in 1999 of flux-based monitoring. 

By 2001, research and development activities led to the current reach-based “Mass Balance Project” (goal 

7) that combines conventional sediment transport sampling with sediment surrogate techniques to provide 

a high-resolution sand flux monitoring dataset used for calculating the fine sediment mass balance 

systemwide. 

These previous research and monitoring efforts guided the development of the current fine sediment core 

monitoring plan. Results from the 2002–05 period of the mass balance project demonstrated that 90 

percent or more of the fine sediment is stored in the eddies and channel at elevations lower than the 8,000 

cfs stage (Hazel and others, 2006). This study also demonstrated that change in that low-elevation 

sediment storage computed from repeat measurements over short (~10 km) reaches is not consistent with 

the change in storage computed based on the measurements of sediment transport over longer (~50 km) 

reaches (Topping and others, 2006a). Although the measurements of sediment transport that are made as 

part of the Integrated Quality of Water’s mass balance task (as mentioned above) will be used to detect 

changes in sediment storage in long reaches over short timescales (up to ~5 years), accumulated 

uncertainty in these measurements will prevent the determination of longer-term trends in sediment 

storage with adequate certainty. 

Suspended sediment transport monitoring is necessary to track the accumulation and fate of tributary 

inputs and to provide information needed to plan high flow events. However, in order to determine 

whether sediment storage in the system as a whole is increasing, decreasing, or stable requires repeat 

measurements of sand storage throughout the entire system. For these reasons, fine sediment storage 

monitoring (goal 8) includes systemwide measurements of channel and eddy sand storage in addition to 

monitoring related to high-elevation sandbars, campsites, and backwaters. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

The research and development phase for the sandbar and sediment storage monitoring program extended 

from FY1998 through FY2006. Thus, the current monitoring program is the outcome of this development 

period and has been fully evaluated through the sediment PEP process (Wohl and others, 1999; Wohl and 

others, 2006). The detailed core monitoring plan has been produced (Topping and others, 2007) and is 

being implemented, as summarized below. 

78 
The planned monitoring program for fine sediment storage (goal 8) builds upon the mass balance 

monitoring program, described under goal 7. Under downstream quality of water monitoring (goal 7), the 

flux of sand, silt, and clay is monitored into and out of long reaches of the river in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. These reaches are RM -15 to 0 (Glen Canyon), RM 0–30 (upper Marble Canyon), RM 30–62 

(lower Marble Canyon), RM 62–88 (upper or eastern Grand Canyon), RM 87–166 (central Grand 

Canyon), and RM 166–226 (lower or western Grand Canyon). These sediment fluxes into and out of 

these reaches are integrated and then differenced to produce the “mass balance” sediment budgets. The 

sediment core monitoring program (goal 8) is designed to complement this flux-based monitoring with a 

geomorphically-based monitoring program. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Monitoring in-channel sediment storage – SedTrend 

The primary signal, which is low-elevation trends in sand storage, will be monitored by annual (excluding 

years with HFEs), measurements of the area and volume of fine sediment over long reaches (> 50 km) 

using multibeam bathymetric surveys, ground-based topographic surveys, underwater video transects, and 

limited underwater microscope data collection for bed grain size. This task, termed SedTrend, is planned 

to be performed on a systemwide basis every 5 to 10 years in order to estimate fine sediment budgets over 

timescales for which the mass balance sediment budgets likely become inconclusive. 

In addition to providing this key sediment budget information (that is, the status of the fine sediment 

“bank account”), these data will also provide information on the location and geometries of backwaters 

thought to be important habitat for native fish. Currently, it is logistically impossible to survey the 

bathymetry of the entire river in any given year. Therefore, a different reach of the river will be surveyed 

each year on a rotating basis. The reaches will correspond to the segments outlined in the downstream 

quality of water (goal 7) mass balance core-monitoring project, such that upon completion of a repeat 

survey for a given reach, all components of the sediment budget (the sediment influx at the upstream 

gage, the sediment efflux at the downstream gage, and the change in storage between the gages) for that 

reach will have been measured directly. Reach 1, RM 0–30 (upper Marble Canyon); Reach 2, RM 30–61 

(lower Marble Canyon); Reach 3, RM 61–87 (eastern Grand Canyon); Reach 4, RM 87–166 (central 

Grand Canyon); Reach 5, RM 166–226 (western Grand Canyon). 

“Sand storage in the channel and 

eddies below 8,000 cfs”

loss gain

“Sandbars above 8,000 cfs”

loss gain

Building 

sandbars 

and 

maintaining 

storage!

Mining 

sand from 

storage

Mining 

sand and 

losing 

sandbars

Accumulating 

sand, not 

building bars -

Could be 

having more 

floods!

79 
Figure 9. Conceptual plot showing how long-term trends in sand storage detected by the SedTrend 

monitoring program will inform management for sandbars. In the event that sandbars are increasing in size 

above the 8,000 cfs stage, the SedTrend monitoring of sand below the 8,000 cfs stage will enable distinction 

between net depletion, “mining” from storage, and net gain, or “maintenance” of sand. If sandbars above the 

8,000 cfs stage are decreasing in size, the SedTrend monitoring will be used to determine whether this is also 

associated with net decrease in storage or an increase in storage. The later would mean that more high flows 

could be used to achieve management goals of building sandbars while the former would mean that sandbar 

goals are unlikely to be met without additional sediment. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

These SedTrend surveys will occur in the late spring and will only be completed in years without HFEs; 

thus, in the absence of HFEs, each reach would be surveyed every 5 years, or if HFEs occurred on 

average every other year, then each reach would be surveyed on average every 10 years. This 5 to 10 year 

interval between repeat bathymetric and topographic surveys, coupled with the mass balance flux 

monitoring, is expected to provide a robust quantification of long-term trends in the fine sediment budget. 

Because reaches 4 and 5 are much longer than reaches 1 through 3, it is possible that portions of these 

reaches will not be surveyed. Existing data will be used to identify the portions of these reaches that are 

most likely to store fine sediment. It is also possible that continued technological advancements and 

improvements in methods will allow for complete surveys of these reaches in the future. 

The monitoring data provided by the SedTrend project will inform managers whether the combined 

effects of basin hydrology, sediment supply, and dam operations are resulting in accumulation or 

depletion of sand from storage in the CRE (figure 9). These data will provide guidance on the feasibility 

of meeting management goals for sand and sandbars and may result in the need to revisit or alter 

management decisions. 

Monitoring High-Elevation Sandbar Deposits and Campsites 

High-deviation sandbars will be monitored by infrequent remotely sensed inventory and annual or 

biennial ground-based measurements. Approximately every 4 years (excluding years with HFEs), the 

system-wide area of fine sediment above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cfs (that is, 

approximately 10 percent of the fine sediment in the CRE) will be monitored using orthorectified aerial 

photography images collected during overflights; the volume of fine sediment may also be monitored if 

light detection and ranging (lidar) sensors are also deployed. These remote-sensing data may also be used 

to help monitor the magnitude and trends in campsite area, backwater area and distribution, and the 

availability of open dry sand on sandbars, as well as for other resource areas such as riparian vegetation 

monitoring. 

A subset of sandbars located throughout the CRE will be monitored every 1–4 years using conventional 

ground-based surveying methods. This dataset, commonly referred to as the “long term sandbar time 

series,” is the longest running dataset on the state of sandbars currently available (initiated in 1990). 

Previous studies have shown that this monitoring effort tracks significant trends in the area of sand above 

the 8,000 cfs stage (Schmidt and others, 2004). This task is conducted in coordination with recreational 

experience (goal 9) monitoring of campsite area, and will include measurements of the area and volume 

of fine sediment above the stage associated with 8,000 cfs. 

Monitoring Changes in Coarse-Grained Sediments and Impacts from Tributary Debris 

Flows 

At least 768 tributaries have the potential to contribute coarse-grained sediment to the CRE. The addition 

of coarse sediment is known to alter beaches and debris fans and can change the way that finer sediment 

is stored throughout the main channel. Such changes occur as a result of aggregation of main channel 

rapids, upper pools, and runs above rapids and through deposition of new gravel on existing debris fans 

80 
and eddies. These geomorphic changes influence the ecosystem’s flow dynamics in and between rapids, 

and effectively increase the abundance of gravel substrates spatially. Monitoring of changes resulting 

from continuing tributary inputs of gravel will be conducted as part of the repeat channel mapping, thus 

enabling detection of long-term trends in coarse sediment storage. Although debris fans will not be 

mapped during the channel mapping, changes in water surface elevation that result from debris flows will 

be detected. In the event of large tributary debris flows that significantly alter the navigational 

characteristics of the main channel, additional field activities may be needed on a contingency basis. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

81 
Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for 

users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of the 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

Statement of Problem 

The Colorado River corridor in Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon offers a diverse assortment of 

recreational opportunities. Immediately below Glen Canyon Dam, the river supports a popular trout 

fishery, and 24 km (15 miles) downstream of the dam is the start of a 386-km (240-mile) stretch of river 

that is world-renowned for its whitewater rapids and associated camping and hiking opportunities. 

Providing for visitor enjoyment by maintaining high-quality recreation experiences along the Colorado 

River is a mandate of the National Park Service Organic Act, and monitoring dam effects on visitor use 

values is a requirement of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The operations of Glen Canyon Dam have 

the potential to improve or degrade the quality of visitor experiences in the Colorado River ecosystem 

(CRE) through affecting the condition of fish and their aquatic habitats, flow-related angling 

opportunities, the size and quality of camping beaches, the quality of the whitewater experience, boater 

safety, and many other biophysical and social attributes that contribute to the recreational experience. In 

the Glen Canyon reach, the major concerns of the GCDAMP relate to how dam operations affect the 

number and size of rainbow trout and the quality of angling opportunities. In Grand Canyon National 

Park, concerns focus on the size, number, and distribution of camping “beaches” in the river corridor and 

on how the volume and fluctuations of dam-controlled flows affect overall visitor experience in terms of 

safety, crowding, camp competition, camp quality, and impacts on visitors’ perceptions of wilderness. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

In terms of recreational angling, the condition of the sport fishery as reflected in the number, size, and 

overall health of rainbow trout above Lees Ferry is monitored annually (see goal 4); in the future, these 

data will be supplemented with survey data on angling success and angler satisfaction collected through 

routine AZGFD creel surveys. In terms of recreational experience downstream of Lees Ferry, key 

parameters include the number, size, distribution, and physical attributes of shoreline campsites, which 

will be assessed through a combination of repeated total station surveys at approximately 35 sites, aerial 

digital imagery analysis of campsites throughout the CRE, and oblique repeat photographs at a sample of 

campsites. To assess the overall effects of dam operations on recreational quality and visitor experience 

attributes, the campsite monitoring program will be supplemented by monitoring key recreational 

attributes that will be determined through completing periodic surveys of recreational use and values and 

a recreational attribute trade-off analysis, as recommended by the 2005 recreation PEP (Loomis and 

others, 2005b.) 

Links to Other Program Elements 

Recreational experience includes consideration of both biophysical and sociological factors. Campsites 

are an important indicator of recreational experience because they affect visitor perceptions of enjoyment, 

wilderness, crowding, and solitude. The size and distribution of campsites also influence types and 

amounts of human impacts that occur in the CRE. In the absence of engineered environments, humans 

prefer certain types of campsites (habitat) over others (Stewart and others, 2000, 2003.) Generally 

speaking, preferred habitats are relatively open and level, free of obstacles, and include expansive views 

and adequate shade and shelter from the elements. For recreational boaters in Grand Canyon, other 

82 
important biophysical campsite attributes include quiet stable mooring conditions for boats and relatively 

easy access from the shoreline to the camp. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Another important sociological attribute for recreational users in wilderness settings is being able to camp 

out of sight and sound of other parties. For day-use anglers in Glen Canyon, the size, number, and 

distribution of trout and the quality and accessibility of trout habitats are important, as well as 

opportunities for quiet and solitude. All of these biophysical attributes, and some sociological attributes, 

are affected by dam operations. Understanding how these attributes change in response to dam operations 

requires data from and integration with other elements of the GCDAMP research and monitoring 

program, including food base (goal 1), fish (goals 2 and 4), terrestrial habitats (goal 6), flow dynamics 

(goal 7), and sediment (goal 8). 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The 2003 AMP Strategic Plan (GCDAMP, 2003) identifies several core monitoring information needs 

(CMINs) related to goal 9 that relate to tracking the effects of dam operations on visitor experience 

quality. Tracking the number, size, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage level in Glen 

and Grand Canyons is one key information need (CMIN 9.3.1). Tracking the effects of dam operations on 

various other physical and social attributes that affect overall recreational experience quality—such as 

camp crowding, safety, types and intensity of human impacts, and other factors (CMIN 9.1.1)—is another 

key information need that has been repeatedly identified as a long-standing gap in the current GCDAMP 

monitoring program (Kaplinski and others, 2005; Loomis and others, 2005b). Adaptive Management 

Program stakeholders have also identified the need to track frequency and scheduling of river-related use 

patterns, including AMP research and monitoring activities.

Summary of Previous Work 

Starting in the early 1970s, the National Park Service initiated various monitoring programs to evaluate 

impacts of visitors on the ecosystem. The effects of dam operations on beaches and the riparian 

ecosystem became an issue of public concern during the earliest attempts by Grand Canyon National Park 

managers to evaluate visitor use impacts in the CRE (Dolan and others, 1974; Carothers and Aitchison, 1976; 

Carothers and others, 1979). 

Since initiation of the GCDAMP, the monitoring program for recreation has focused almost exclusively 

on one aspect of CMIN 9.3.1, specifically the amount (size) of campable area in the CRE. For the past 10 

years, monitoring of change in campable area has occurred in conjunction with, and as an extension of, 

the Northern Arizona University (NAU) sandbar time series monitoring program (one component of goal 

8 monitoring). The 1998–2006 campsite area monitoring program has documented a progressive decline 

in campable area over the past 10 years, with camp area declining faster than sandbar area (Kaplinski and 

others, 2005); this finding suggests that other factors besides loss of sandbars are contributing to campsite 

area decline. Vegetation encroachment related to loss of periodic high flows under current dam operations 

is thought to be a significant additional factor contributing to the progressive loss of campable area in the 

CRE. 

In summer 2005, GCMRC implemented the first PEP review of the recreation monitoring and research 

programs in the CRE (Loomis and others, 2005b). The review evaluated research and monitoring that had 

been carried out over the past two decades by the National Park Service as part of their statutory 

responsibilities, by the Bureau of Reclamation in conjunction with the Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies programs (1982–95), and by the GCMRC in support of the stated goals of the GCDAMP. Among 

other conclusions, the PEP noted that the entire concept of “recreational experience” involves a complex 

intersection of biophysical and social attributes mediated through management decisions linked to visitor 

83 
values and expectations. For this reason, the PEP recommended that the GCDAMP invest in additional 

research to elucidate the relative importance of flows, camping beaches, trout, archaeological sites, social 

encounter rates, and other biophysical and sociological attributes that can be monitored directly as 

indicators of recreation experience quality, rather than trying to monitor the overall quality of the 

recreation experience through annual visitor satisfaction surveys or other indirect means. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

Figure 10 illustrates the relationship between physical attributes and recreational experience and 

highlights the key attributes that are important to monitor in the future as indicators of visitor experience. 

1. Management Actions 2. Unique Characteristics of Glen & Grand 

Canyon (e.g. geology) BR (Dam Releases), 

NPS (Launch Schedules, etc.) 

AZGF (Fishing Regulation) 

3. Recreation Conditions: (Physical, Biological, Social and Management) 

(e.g. flows, beach size, camp shading, and number of launches) 

4. Trip Attributes 5. Visitor Evaluations of 

Recreation Conditions and 

Trip Attributes 

(e.g. rate of travel, length of trip, 

size & number of rapids, 

encounters with other groups, 

discretionary time, safety) 

Figure 10. A conceptual model of river recreation to guide monitoring.

7. Visitor Evaluations of Their 

Experience

6. Recreational Experiences (what 

visitors experience on their trip, 

including aspects of wilderness 

experience) 

84 
1 Other primary PEP recommendations included the following tasks: 

4 

6 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

2 • Refine campsite measurement protocols 

3 • Develop a GIS-base atlas to track systemwide campsite changes and changes in camp distribution 

through time 

5 • Integrate Adopt-A-Beach images and other photographic records into the future campsite atlas 

and monitoring program 

7 • Undertake a focused research project to identify the relative importance of flows and various 

flow-related attributes that contribute to a high-quality recreational experience, and conduct 

recreational attribute trade-off analyses to ascertain attribute priorities under different flow 

conditions 

• Compile existing safety/incident data and analyze it in relation to flows 

• Improve the safety-incident tracking system 

• Improve coordination and collaboration between GCMRC and National Park Service recreation 

monitoring programs to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness of both programs 

The PEP also recommended that the AMP place more emphasis on monitoring the effects of the dam on 

recreation economics. 

In 2005–06, the National Park Service approved an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and issued a 

Record of Decision (ROD) for a new Grand Canyon National Park Colorado River Management Plan 

(CRMP). The CRMP focus is different from the GCDAMP; the CRMP focuses on regulating visitor and 

administrative use levels and managing the effects of that use in the CRE. In the EIS, the National Park 

Service committed to developing and implementing a visitor use monitoring plan and to managing the 

river corridor adaptively based on the results of monitoring. One component of the proposed CRMP 

monitoring plan focuses on monitoring the effects of visitors on campsites and attraction sites. Another 

component involves tracking rates of on-river and off-river encounters between boating parties under the 

new regulations. 

The specific CRMP monitoring plan and protocols are currently under development but are proposed to 

include both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of visitor impacts to biological and sociological 

components of the ecosystem. The National Park Service also tracks and regulates administrative use in 

the river corridor as part of the CRMP implementation plan. Since 2006, the National Park Service has 

been working independently of the GCDAMP program to define protocols for CRMP 

(visitor/administrative use) monitoring and is currently (2009) pilot testing them. 

The GCDAMP monitoring program for goal 9 will complement, but does not duplicate, the CRMP 

program. Developing and testing alternative monitoring protocols for CMINs 9.3.1 and 9.1.1 has been a 

focus of GCMRC research since the 2005 PEP. Since 2007, the GCMRC has been collaborating with 

Grand Canyon National Park to develop a GIS atlas documenting the size, distribution, and quality of past 

and present campsites. This atlas will incorporate historical monitoring data and photographic records 

documenting changes through time and will allow other components of CMIN 9.3.1 related to the 

distribution and quality of campsites throughout the CRE to be monitored systematically in the future. So 

far, the atlas has produced an inventory showing that there are approximately 500 locations in the river 

corridor that have been used as campsites during the past 35 years, of which approximately 300 are 

currently still usable as camps. 

85 
1 Summary of Monitoring Project 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Geographic Scope 

Monitoring related to sport fishing/angling and day rafting recreation are focused in the Glen Canyon 

reach between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry; monitoring related to whitewater recreational 

experiences and changing campsite conditions are focused in Grand Canyon from Lees Ferry to 

Separation Canyon. 

Temporal Scope 

The temporal scope of monitoring activities will vary according to the type of monitoring being 

conducted. Campsite surveys using repeat total station surveys will occur every other year in conjunction 

with the NAU sandbar monitoring effort (subject to review by the future PEP). Analysis of systemwide 

changes in campsite distribution will be conducted in conjunction with aerial overflights, coupled with 

systemwide field inventories once every 5 years. Repeat photographs of 45 popular campsites will be 

collected annually. A comprehensive analysis of changes in visitor experience quality is proposed to 

occur once every decade. 

Methods 

Currently, the GCDAMP monitoring program for recreation focuses primarily on evaluating the effects of 

dam operations on a single campsite attribute: the amount (size) of campable area in the CRE, as 

documented through repeat total station surveys of open, level, sandy terrain at a representative (but not 

random) sample of approximately 35 sandbar campsites (Kaplinski and others, 2005). This monitoring 

project will continue in the future on a biennial basis at a subset of sandbars and campsites located 

throughout the CRE using conventional ground-based surveying methods. This monitoring task will be 

conducted in coordination with Goal 8 core monitoring of the NAU sandbar series and will include 

measurements of sand areas above the 8,000 cfs stage that are open, flat, and level. 

The campsite atlas will serve as the basis for assessing changes in campsite distribution and quality on a 

systemwide basis; the atlas will also serve as the repository for data derived from monitoring change in 

campsite attributes. For example, in FY2010–11 we will analyze the amount and density of vegetation at 

a sample of current and historically used campsites using both aerial imagery and ground-based 

photographs to quantify the rate of vegetation encroachment and its effects on campsite quality over time. 

In terms of monitoring visitor experience, the 2005 PEP recommended conducting a comprehensive 

recreational attribute tradeoff analysis to determine how different dam operations (flows) affect the 

various biophysical and social attributes that are important to maintaining a high-quality visitor 

experience, then monitoring those attributes routinely in lieu of monitoring visitor satisfaction through 

repeated surveys. Under this plan, visitor surveys would be conducted infrequently (once every ~5 years) 

to “calibrate” the results of the recreational attribute monitoring effort. Implementation of this project has 

been deferred repeatedly since 2006, but is still needed and is recommended for implementation within 

the timeframe of this plan (FY2010–15). 

In terms of recreational angling, the AZGFD routinely monitors the size, weight, and number of trout in 

the Lees Ferry reach to meet the monitoring objectives for goal 4; in addition, GCMRC proposes to reinstitute collection of data on recreational angling success and angler satisfaction through repeat creel 

surveys that the AZGFD formerly routinely conducted as part of their statutory responsibilities. 

86 
Third and fourth priority CMINs related to monitoring administrative use levels in the CRE can be readily 

accomplished by having the National Park Service summarize and report the numbers of research, 

monitoring, and mitigation trips and research permits issued for work on the Colorado River on an annual 

basis. (These data are already being compiled routinely for the CRMP.) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Monitoring Program Status/Implementation Schedule 

Many recommendations of the 2005 recreation PEP have not been implemented due to perpetual AMP 

funding constraints; the schedule for their implementation in the future remains uncertain. 

Starting in FY2010, both historical and recently acquired monitoring data related to campsites will be 

made available via the online campsite atlas. In FY2010-2011, GCMRC proposes to continue exploring 

methods for analyzing remotely sensed data to evaluate campsite changes and will host another PEP 

focused exclusively on the campsite monitoring elements of the program in 2012, with the intent of 

having a core monitoring program for campsites in place by the end of FY2012. 

87 
Goal 10: Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and 

increase where feasible and advisable, within the framework of the 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Statement of Problem 

The water level in Lake Powell and the pattern and timing of the release of water through the turbines in 

Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) directly affect hydropower generation capacity. Power generated at Glen 

Canyon Dam is marketed mostly in six western states by the Department of Energy’s Western Area 

Power Administration (WAPA). WAPA’s primary mission is to sell power from Federal water project 

power plants under statutory criteria in the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, the Flood Control Act of 

1944, and the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act of 1956. 

The adoption of modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF) criteria as a result of the 1996 Record of Decision 

reduced operational flexibility and the potential value of power generated by the dam. Tracking 

generation (as impacted by operations for other project purposes), power market rates, necessary power 

purchases, and Basin Fund cash flow provides the means to assess the impact of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations in terms of hydropower production and financial impacts to rate payers and the Basin Fund. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

The specific parameters to be monitored reflect the key variables tracked by WAPA and used in economic 

models to predict or retroactively assess impacts of various flow regimes on hydropower replacement 

costs. These include (1) hourly energy generation (System Control and Data Acquisition, SCADA, data), 

(2) hourly market prices, (3) monthly firming purchases, and (4) monthly Basin Fund balance. More 

information about each of these variables can be found in the section below titled “Previous Work 

Towards Core Monitoring.”

Core Monitoring Information Needs Summary 

The 2003 AMP Strategic Plan identified four CMINs under goal 10. Subsequently, in 2006, the Science 

Planning Group condensed and reduced the number of hydropower-related CMINs to one, as follows: 

CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy produced through dam operations 

in relation to various release scenarios (daily fluctuation limits, upramp and downramp limits, maximum 

and minimum daily flow limits). 

Summary of Previous Work 

Despite the importance of hydropower as a regional resource, a formal monitoring program to track the 

status and trends of this resource and its impact on the Basin Fund has not been undertaken within the 

context of the GCDAMP. However, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and WAPA continuously 

schedule and monitor power generation to meet anticipated and real-time power demand. This 

information is available on an hourly time step reported daily, weekly, and monthly from SCADA data. 

WAPA and its customers track power source, availability, and market changes on an hourly basis to 

assess the need, cost, and accessibility for additional power resources to meet contractual obligations or 

unanticipated demand. Market pricing, resulting costs of purchases, and the impact on Basin Fund cash 

flow are recorded in the WAPA Energy Tracking Database (ISA). This information is reported monthly 

88 
and annually and is available through WAPA-CRSP, but is not publically available. Descriptions of these 

monitored parameters are described in Table 5. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Table 6. Metrics and frequency of data collection for power costs. MW = megawatt, MWH = megawatt hour; 

SCADA = Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system, and WAPA = Western Area Power 

Administration. 

Objective Parameters Methods Location(s) Frequency 

Accuracy 

and 

precision 

Monitor monthly

energy generation 

MW SCADA SCADA Phoenix 

– Dumped 

Energy 

Management 

System (ISA) 

Hourly N/A 

Monitor hourly

power market price 

$/MWH WAPA Energy

Tracking 

Database (ISA) 

WAPA –

Montrose 

Hourly N/A 

Monitor monthly

firming power 

purchases 

$ and MW 

purchased 

WAPA Energy

Tracking 

Database (ISA) 

WAPAMontrose Monthly N/A 

Monitor monthly

Basin Fund Balance 

$ WAPA Energy

Tracking 

Database (ISA) 

WAPA-CRSP Monthly N/A 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Energy generated: The SCADA system that measures generation at Glen Canyon Dam is reported to a 

database that is accessible by the WAPA Phoenix office. Currently, those data are dumped into the 

CRSP-Montrose office ISA, and from ISA monthly generation is calculated by summing all the hourly 

values. Hourly generation totals are not currently reported but can be accessed by WAPA-CRSP or 

WAPA-Montrose. For the purposes of this project, hourly data are reported. 

Hourly market prices: Market prices vary at different purchase points throughout the system. The price 

that WAPA-Montrose pays for power is pertinent to WAPA and its customers. This value is recorded 

only for the hours in which WAPA buys or sells power; therefore, the dataset is incomplete. If complete 

data are needed by WAPA-Montrose, they look at the Dow Jones for a representative point of sale and 

record that data price. These data can be accessed via the Web and reported to an Excel spreadsheet if 

access is requested and granted by WAPA-Montrose. 

Basin Fund balance: The financial manager for the CRSP office completes an end-of-month cash 

balance and Basin Fund balance report found on WAPA’s Web site. The reports are usually completed by 

the 15th of the month. These data will be for the previous month’s billing on the 2 months previous 

services. 

Monthly firming purchases: These data are found in the WAPA-Montrose ISA database. Purchases 

made by WAPA for customers are reported by the 10th of the following month, broken out by customer 

(purchased from). 

89 
1 Summary of Monitoring Project 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Geographic Scope 

The monitoring project encompasses Glen Canyon Dam. 

Temporal Scope 

Hourly data will be collected by WAPA and “pulled” into the GCMRC server on a daily basis; monthly 

data will be delivered to the GCMRC at the conclusion of each month. 

Program Status/Implementation Schedule 

Currently, the core-monitoring program for goal 10 is under development. Although data on GCD 

hydropower generation and opportunity costs under MLFF operations are being gathered by Reclamation 

and WAPA as routine agency functions, these data are not currently accessible to other GCDAMP 

stakeholders. The need for this information in a readily accessible format has been identified as a program 

need, and a small amount of funding has been approved by AMWG to serve data generated by 

Reclamation and WAPA through the GCMRC Web site. Development of computer programs and 

databases to serve this information is currently underway and close to being finalized. The GCMRC 

expects to start serving SCADA and ISA data through the GCMRC Web site in 2009. 

90 
Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the 

inspiration and benefit of past, present, and future generations 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

Statement of Problem 

Cultural resources in the Colorado River corridor include archaeological sites, historic structures, 

traditional cultural properties, and humanly modified landscapes, as well as natural resources that are 

valued by Native American tribes for their importance in traditional cultural practices. These resources 

are subject to change over time due to both direct and indirect effects of dam operations, as well as effects 

independent of dam operations including climate change, weather-induced erosion, and visitor impacts. 

The ongoing erosion of archaeological sites in the CRE is of particular concern to GCDAMP 

stakeholders, especially the National Park Service, because of the presumed effects of dam operations on 

erosion rates due to changes in sediment supply and sediment redistribution. Erosion at archaeological 

sites results in deterioration of site stability and increased risk of loss of artifacts and structures. Dam 

operations may affect rates of erosion and other ecosystem processes by directly eroding or depositing 

sediment or removing or enhancing stabilizing vegetation (Fairley and others 1994). Indirect dam effects 

may include deflation or deposition of sediment due to changes in sediment transport rates tied to the 

creation or loss of sandbars or losses or increases in vegetation or other types of ground-cover in response 

to ground water level changes or altered disturbance regimes. 

Draut and Rubin (2008) have documented the role of aeolian sand in impeding the effects of overlandflow erosion when an appropriately located sand source exists nearby. Their work also demonstrated how 

enhancing local sand supplies through creation of sandbars under sediment-enriched high flows can 

potentially result in increased sand transport towards archaeological sites. Dam-induced changes in 

terrestrial habitats and associated use patterns by small and large mammals (including humans) tied to 

dam operation effects can also affect the condition of archaeological sites and other types of cultural 

resources. The interactions of all these ecosystem factors, whether directly or indirectly influenced by 

dam operations, contribute to changes in the condition of cultural resources in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

The physical stability of archaeological sites is a primary measure of site condition. Changes in site 

stability can be linked to effects stemming from variations in dam operations; therefore, GCMRC is 

currently designing a monitoring program to track status and trends in the physical stability of 

archaeological sites on a systemwide basis. Specifically, GCMRC is currently developing and testing 

protocols to accurately measure changes in key indicators of site stability, including surface topography 

(amount of deposition or erosion of sediment), artifact movement, and soil cover characteristics. We are 

also quantifying the actual amount of deposition or erosion occurring due to transport of sediment under 

varying sediment supply and weather conditions. These measurements will complement National Park 

Service monitoring activities being conducted outside the purview of the Adaptive Management Program 

(AMP), such as monitoring site condition to comply with Section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and monitoring visitor impacts as a Section 106 compliance measure under the 

new Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP). 

Traditional cultural properties and natural resources of traditional importance are being monitored 

separately by each Native American tribe. Culturally specific monitoring programs are evaluating 

resource conditions in relation to traditional perceptions of ecosystem “health.” These programs include 

91 
monitoring evidence of human visitation at culturally sensitive locations in the CRE and monitoring 

overall condition of the riparian and old high water zone ecological communities. Some tribes are also 

monitoring vegetation cover at select locations in the CRE using transects or other Western science 

approaches. The specific variables monitored and the protocols used to assess change in resource 

condition vary by tribe. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Links to Other Program Elements 

Archaeological sites and many of the traditional cultural properties along the Colorado River reflect the 

habitat preferences and resource-dependent activities of past occupants of the CRE. Many of the cultural 

sites contain a wealth of historical, cultural, geomorphological, and ecological information that can help 

to inform the GCDAMP and other programs about how the system functioned in the past and can also 

provide historical reference condition information. 

A strong linkage exists between dam operations and effects on cultural resources in the Colorado River 

ecosystem in Grand Canyon through indirect effects related to the discharge and quality (sediment 

supply) of water in the Colorado River (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995; National Research 

Council, 1996). Nutrient concentrations, salinity, turbidity, and biological components of water released 

from Glen Canyon Dam directly affect many components of the aquatic-riparian ecosystem below the 

dam, which in turn can affect rates of sediment transport to and from archaeological sites. Sediment 

supply, as determined largely by tributary inputs and mainstem Colorado River transport rates, affects the 

deposition and erosion of alluvial deposits and the overall storage of fine sediment in the CRE, both of 

which are key to maintaining the stability of archaeological sites in the CRE. Specifically, nearshore 

sandbars formed and modified by dam-controlled flows provide a potential source of fluvial sediment that 

can be mobilized and moved inland by wind towards archaeological sites. Exploring the effects of fine 

sand supply, and the effects of its deposition above the 25,000 cfs stage elevation, is also important to 

monitoring goals 1,6, 7, 8, and 9. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

The 2003 AMP Strategic Plan (GCDAMP, 2003) identified several core monitoring information needs 

(CMINs) related to goal 11. In October 2005, the Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group reached consensus 

on two revised CMINs for goal 11 and forwarded them to the Science Planning Group of the Technical 

Work Group for adoption by the program. The core monitoring information needs call for determining 

“the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the Colorado River ecosystem through 

tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables” and determining “the condition 

and integrity of traditional cultural properties.” 

Summary of Previous Work 

The National Park Service started monitoring archaeological sites in the Colorado River corridor of 

Grand Canyon to meet their statutory obligations under the NHPA beginning in 1978. The program 

evolved over the next 20 years from an informal ad hoc approach (notes and photographs) focused 

primarily on documenting visitor impacts to a more formalized approach (using standardized forms and 

photo logs to document qualitative observations) focused on both visitor impacts and erosion of 

archaeological deposits. In the early 1990s, the program moved into a new phase of monitoring directed 

toward meeting Section 106 compliance requirements relative to monitoring effects of dam operations; 

however, monitoring observations continued to be qualitative in nature, rather than quantitative, and the 

linkage between monitoring observations and dam operations was not clearly established, raising 

concerns that the monitoring program was not meeting the needs of the GCDAMP (King, 1999; Doelle 

and others, 2000). 

92 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

In 2000, a PEP evaluated the National Park Service/GCDAMP cultural resources monitoring program, as 

well as other aspects of the National Park Service/GCDAMP cultural program (Doelle and others, 2000), 

and recommended that the monitoring program be redesigned to meet the following objectives: 

• Monitor the effects of dam operations on archaeological site condition 

• Monitor the efficacy of the treatments being undertaken to mitigate dam effects (that is, check 

dams to reduce erosion). 

Concurrently, in the mid-1990s, several of the tribes involved in writing and reviewing the Glen Canyon 

Dam Operation EIS (Bureau of Reclamation, 1995) submitted proposals to the Bureau of Reclamation to 

undertake their own monitoring programs to evaluate the status of resources in the CRE using tribespecific approaches and protocols. In 2002, GCMRC attempted to integrate the tribes’ monitoring 

approaches within a broadly conceived Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring Program. However, this proved 

to be difficult because the tribes’ interests tended to be focused on specific, culturally important locations 

on the landscape whereas Western scientists favored using a random sampling approach to assess 

ecosystem conditions. In 2007, the TWG recommended that funding be provided by Reclamation for the 

tribes to pursue developing their own approach to monitoring resource condition, and in 2008 additional 

funding was provided to implement these programs. The tribal monitoring programs continue to be 

focused on specific places of cultural importance to each tribe. 

In 2005, the National Park Service approved an EIS for a new National Park Service Colorado River 

Management Plan (CRMP). As part of that plan, the National Park Service committed to develop and 

implement a visitor impact monitoring plan. One component focuses on monitoring the effects of visitors 

on cultural resources. The specific plan and protocols are under development but are proposed to include 

qualitative assessments about visitor threats and disturbances on historic property integrity, using 

guidelines and definitions of the National Park Service’s Archaeological Sites Management Information 

System. 

In 2006, GCMRC initiated a cultural monitoring research and development project to follow through on 

the recommendations of the 2000 PEP. The initial focus has been on developing monitoring protocols for 

archaeological sites; however, the final program will encompass the full range of cultural resources. As 

part of this cultural monitoring R&D project, a second review of the 1992–2005 Section 106 

archaeological site monitoring program was undertaken. The review panel concluded that the previous 

monitoring program had succeeded in meeting the National Park Service objective of documenting 

impacts at archaeological sites, but the panel expressed concerns similar to the previous (2000) PEP about 

the utility of these monitoring data for meeting GCDAMP needs for information on dam effects, status 

and trends in resource condition, and efficacy of mitigation actions. Specifically, they noted that the 

concept of “site condition” needed to be “unpacked” and its components specifically linked to dam 

operations through a conceptual or numerical model in order to effectively monitor dam operation 

impacts on cultural resources and objectively track status and trends over the long term (Kintigh and 

others, 2007). 

Since 2006, the GCMRC has been working with cooperators from inside and outside the U.S. Geological 

Survey to develop and test quantitative monitoring protocols to track changing condition of 

archaeological sites in the river corridor. The focus of the current R&D effort is on developing protocols 

to reliably measure effects to the physical stability of archaeological sites tied to dam operations. Using a 

conceptual framework that links archaeological sites to the broader ecosystem and to the specific 

ecological processes sustaining that system, GCMRC has evaluated a suite of monitoring tools and 

protocols to track the effects of ecosystem processes – especially sediment supply and disturbance 

regimes, both of which are significantly affected by the operations Glen Canyon Dam—on the physical 

stability of archaeological sites. The proposed protocols are able to quantitatively measure rates and types 

93 
of surface changes occurring in response to effects of dam operations (Collins and others, 2009; Draut 

and others, in prep.). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Geographic Scope 

The project encompasses the Colorado River ecosystem between Glen Canyon Dam and Diamond Creek. 

Temporal Scope 

TBD – The plan is for sites to be re-monitored on a rotating multiyear schedule. 

Methods 

Potential monitoring protocols include using repeat lidar surveys of sites to directly measure changes in 

surface topography, soil crust cover, and artifact movement, in conjunction with using weather stations to 

track the intermediary effects of weather events on sediment transport to and from shoreline sand deposits 

and the sites. Given the number and diverse geomorphic settings of archaeological sites in the river 

corridor, coupled with preliminary data on rates of erosion, we anticipate a monitoring program that relies 

on a statistically appropriate sample (suitable for characterizing the variability in site types, geomorphic 

settings, and sediment supply dynamics within the river corridor) to characterize systemwide changes in 

archaeological site condition. 

Program Status/Implementation Schedule 

The GCDAMP monitoring program for archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties is currently 

under development. The current plan calls for testing the protocols in a pilot program (2009–11) then 

convening a PEP late in 2011 to evaluate the results of this pilot program, with implementation of a final 

core monitoring project in 2012. 

Independently of the GCDAMP program, the National Park Service has developed protocols for CRMP 

(visitor impact) monitoring and is currently (2009) pilot testing them. 

Tribal monitoring programs are currently being implemented on a pilot basis by the individual tribes who 

value these resources. In the future, the plan is to integrate tribal monitoring efforts with the 

archaeological site monitoring program where feasible and practical to reduce resource impacts, 

redundancy, and program costs. 

94 
Goal 12: Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive 

management program 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

(Coordinated systemwide remote-sensing activities, related to goals 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12) 

Statement of Problem 

Monitoring any resource in the remote 277-mile-long Grand Canyon is logistically challenging from 

every standpoint. Many resources are distributed throughout the entire corridor, and environmental 

factors that affect at least some resources change along the corridor, such that targeted or random sample 

collection can be scientifically biased or their results ambiguous. Airborne remote-sensing surveys with 

appropriate sensors can alleviate these collection and sample issues and can, in fact, provide more ground 

information in less time compared to ground surveys. Even if ground studies could correctly target 

selected areas for study, the ground surveys would still be as expensive as, and more environmentally 

invasive than, alternative remote-sensing approaches. From an archival perspective, periodic corridorwide remotely sensed data provide irreplaceable, historical records of the system, which allow historical 

analyses for unforeseen research and monitoring issues, but our discussion in this document focuses on 

applications related to specific, current core monitoring requirements.

Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables 

Different remote-sensing sensors provide different information on various surface characteristics that are 

directly or indirectly indicative of various ecosystem resources within the corridor. Our tests of various 

sensors (reviewed in the Summary of Previous Work section) indicated that passive (solar) and active 

(laser) reflected light sensors were the most viable for resource monitoring in the canyon. These sensors 

provide reflectance spectral, texture, and elevation data and allow contextual interpretations. The sensors 

to be employed are discussed in the Planned Monitoring Program section. All of these surface 

characteristics are used in integrated analyses to identify resource type, area, and volume. The following 

canyon resources can be monitored using such sensors. 

Vegetation 

Periodic, systemwide remote sensing on a 4-year interval is proposed for (1) monitoring the gross change 

in vegetated area along the corridor and within geomorphic reaches since 2002 and 2005 within the 

limitations of image resolution, and (2) mapping community change at the association-level within a 0.01 

hectare minimum mapping unit. 

Sandbars and Campsites 

Periodic, systemwide remote sensing is proposed for monitoring the area of exposed bare sand above the 

8,000 cfs stage. For selected campsites, the proportion of the total area of exposed sand available for 

camping use will also be monitored. Some visual, contextual interpretations of the remote-sensing data 

will be required to classify the geomorphology of the sandbars. 

95 
1 Sediment Storage 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

The primary signal for fine-sediment storage is its volume change within the channel below the 8,000 cfs 

water stage. The essential data for determining trends in storage volume over periods longer than 5 years 

are repeat measurements of channel bathymetry. If feasible, systemwide remote sensing will be used to 

monitor the area and volume of fine and coarse sediment in the main channel. 

Shoreline Morphology 

Periodic, systemwide remote sensing is proposed for monitoring the distribution and area of debris fans, 

gravel deposits, bedrock, and backwaters above the 8,000 cfs stage. Some visual, contextual 

interpretations of the remote-sensing data will be required to accurately determine the areal extent of 

certain features. These data will be compared to comparable databases derived from 2002 and 2005 

remote-sensing data. 

Archaeological Sites 

Periodic remote sensing is proposed to detect surficial change, to identify source, pattern, and degree of 

change, and to monitor the trends of natural processes and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. 

Specific sites for monitoring will be selected by GCMRC, in consultation with the National Park Service 

and other GCDAMP participants. 

Links to Resources 

The areal abundance, volume, and distribution of major riparian community types are related to the 

distribution of native and nonnative vegetation, and affect the quality and quantity of riparian habitats. 

Sandbars form the substrate for much of the riparian ecosystem, provide a source of windblown sediment 

that may protect archaeological sites, provide camping beaches for recreational use, and provide lowvelocity habitats for native fish (Rubin and others, 2002; Wright and others, 2005). Debris fans provide 

the basic structure of the CRE in Grand Canyon. They determine the locations where most of the sandbars 

occur, they strongly affect channel hydraulics and control rapid severity, and they provide aquatic habitats 

and breeding grounds. Changes in debris fans, which may result from tributary debris flows, and other 

shoreline characteristics affect both riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. Archaeological sites, although 

not natural resources, reflect the habitat preferences of past human occupants of the CRE and are shaped 

by the same ecological processes that affect the ecosystem as a whole. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs Summary 

The resource core monitoring needs are as follows: 

• Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and 3 

nonnative vegetation plant species in the CRE (goal 6). 

• Determine and track the fine sediment area, volume, and grain size changes at all stages within 

eddies, below the 5,000 cfs stage elsewhere in the main channel, and above the 5,000 cfs stage 

for sandbars outside of eddies (goal 8). 

• Determine and track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and 

distribution (goal 8). 

96 
• Determine and track the size, frequency, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage 

level in Glen and Grand Canyons (goal 9). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

• Determine and track rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables within 

archaeological sites that pose a threat to cultural resources and possibly track effectiveness of 

mitigation efforts (goal 11). 

The complete list of CMINs is shown in Appendix A. 

Summary of Previous Work 

Before 2000, all of the remote-sensing data collected for Grand Canyon consisted of aerial analog 

photography at various scales but generally at a scale of 1:4,800. These data were stored as individual, 

unrectified image prints. As such, the hardcopy archive was used sparingly or was misused, resulting in 

image degradation and loss. Lack of and difficulty in accurate registration of the images to actual ground 

locations was just one reason for their limited use. These data were inventoried and the original film is 

stored, but digital preservation of the data has been slow and analysis of the historical data has stalled. In 

1998, a protocol evaluation panel (Berlin and others, 1998) reviewed GCMRC monitoring efforts and its 

remote-sensing initiative that lasted 5 years, during which time all available airborne remote-sensing 

technologies were considered for each monitoring need; the technologies showing promise for recording a 

monitoring parameter were then field tested. Relevant selection factors included spatial resolution, 

inherent capability to detect a parameter at the required accuracy, flight altitude and duration, required 

ground support and post processing, and cost. Sensors that could not meet resource requirements for 

accuracy, resolution, or sampling interval were excluded from further consideration. This evaluation went 

well beyond the recommendations developed by PEP review; results of our tests on various remotesensing technologies were published individually and in a final report on all of the results and 

recommendations developed during the 5-year study (Davis, 2004). 

The relevant, fundamental conclusions from these studies were the following: 

• Four-band (blue, green, red, and near-infrared) digital imagery collected at a spatial resolution of 

20 cm or better can identify and quantify the gross land-cover units within Grand Canyon—

consisting of bare fine- and coarse-grained alluvium, vegetation, water, and bedrock—using 

spectral and textural information provided by these band data. 

• Four-band data can classify vegetation at the association level, but hyperspectral data obtained at 

near 1-m spatial resolution is probably required to achieve classification at the community level 

and to determine the compositions of species in the units. 

• Normal, medium-resolution lidar does not currently provide sufficient vertical accuracies (<12 

cm at the 95 percent confidence level) to monitor terrestrial sand deposits. 

• High-resolution lidar does meet the vertical accuracy requirements for both terrestrial sand 

deposits and archaeological site monitoring (with a 7–8 cm error at the 95 percent confidence 

level), but the flight altitude for high-density mapping of archaeological sites is 200 m. However 

the system is noninvasive, is as accurate as ground lidar, and contains no laser shadows. 

• Dual-laser bathymetric Lidar may provide full channel geometry down to a water depth of 18 m, 

but has not yet been tested within Grand Canyon (it has been successfully tested in Glen 

Canyon). The system collects data at an altitude of 300 m. Our test of this system near Lees Ferry 

produced vertical accuracies of 33 cm at the 95 percent confidence level for both terrestrial and 

bathymetric measurements down to an 18-m water depth. This system is the only method with 

the potential to map a large fraction of the CRE within 1 week or even within a 5-year period. 

97 
1 Summary of Monitoring Project 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

Four-band Digital Imagery 

Four-band color digital imagery will be collected once every 4 years between Glen Canyon Dam and the 

Grand Wash Cliffs (277 river miles) for the river corridor as defined by the 250,000 cfs shoreline. 

Although specifications may change as technology evolves, the 2009 protocol specifies 12-bit data 

collected at 0.15-m pixel resolution with 0.30-m positional error. These data will be collected using a 

sensor with a single lens that precludes band-image registration problems. A digital surface model derived 

from the data will be delivered as 32-bit map tiles with 1-m grid cells and 0.25-m vertical resolution and 

0.30-m positional error. 

The band imagery requires quality control and possible spatial adjustments for registration with previous 

databases and for radiometric calibration to provide ground reflectance values. The image data may be 

delivered as flight lines, to preserve data integrity, and therefore require inter-flight-line adjustments to 

normalize the effects of variable sun angle and atmospheric scattering. After data are verified and 

corrected, flight lines will be merged into image mosaics and sectioned into map tiles. 

The four-band image mosaics will be digitally analyzed to produce additional, derivative surface 

characteristics, which are then used to classify the surface into units of vegetation, fine-grained sediment, 

coarse-grained sediment, bedrock, and water. Additional analyses will separate backwaters and better 

define debris fans. The area of systemwide camping beaches (indicative of quality but not of camping 

area quantity) will be derived using the fine-grained sediment unit and camping-beach polygons. That 

same sediment unit and the digital surface model data will be used to determine the volumes of sandbars 

systemwide. 

The vegetation unit generated from the above land-cover analysis will be used to constrain our analyses 

of the image data to subdivide (classify) that unit into one of the major vegetation species that occurs in 

Grand Canyon. We are hoping the 2009 four-band data are the best to date and can provide better 

vegetation identification and classification than previously, preferably at the community level. However, 

if that is not the case, we want to explore the alternative, hyperspectral approach discussed next. 

Hyperspectral Digital Imagery 

Hyperspectral is a term used to describe remote-sensing sensors that provide more than 20 wavelength 

image bands, although the term generally refers to systems that provide over 100 bands. We propose to 

use a sensor that provides 357 bands whose wavelengths cover the range from 400 nm to 2,500 nm at 5–

10 nm intervals. Such systems are routinely and successfully used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and U.S. Forest Service for ecosystem mapping and monitoring, including riparian zones. Although the 

spatial resolution is lower, the significantly larger number of wavelength bands provides greatly increased 

mapping capability for vegetation, including senescent vegetation, which is extremely difficult to classify 

with four broad bands that do not include wavelengths beyond 800 nm. Such a system now exists, 

providing calibrated reflectance data at less than 1 meter spatial resolution flying at an altitude of 2,500 

feet. We would like to test this system on selected river reaches that contain all of the major riparian and 

xeric vegetation species in 2010, during early fall when most species are in bloom. This system can map 

10 river miles in less than 1 hour. Although the spatial resolution of the system is lower than desired for 

other canyon resources, the system can be selectively used to augment the four-band results in areas 

where there are large stands of diverse vegetation. This may be the only approach to adequately track the 

compositional changes in the vegetation related to flow release and climate, as well as monitoring the 

effects of potential tamarisk beetle infestation in the future. 

98 
1 Dual-laser Bathymetric/Terrestrial Lidar 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

One of the objectives of systemwide remote sensing is to measure changes in sediment storage within the 

channel below the 5,000 cfs discharge level every 5 to 10 years. This core monitoring objective is 

discussed in detail in the section in this chapter covering goal 8. It is included here because Lidar is one 

method that may be capable of simultaneously measuring terrestrial and subaqueous surface elevation 

throughout the CRE in Grand Canyon. The current protocol described in the section for goal 8 requires 5 

consecutive years of acoustic multibeam data collection to map the channel from Lees Ferry to Diamond 

Creek. It may be possible, using the dual-laser Lidar system, to map much of the CRE within a single 

year. However, there will be locations where depth or turbidity exceeds the detection level of the system. 

Those locations could then be captured using the acoustic multibeam system. This combination of 

techniques would have two advantages: (1) they provide instantaneous full channel geometry of the entire 

system, and (2) the multibeam surveys would only be performed in Lidar data gaps, which would reduce 

multibeam’s invasive nature, would require less acquisition time, and might be less expensive. Funding 

for implementing dual-laser Lidar as a core monitoring protocol is not included because more R&D is 

required before implementation is possible, but we would like to test the Lidar system during 2011 within 

a mainstem reach that has more representative turbidity than the Lees Ferry reach. 

High-Resolution Terrestrial Lidar 

This Lidar system (referred to as FLI-MAP) provides the highest ground point density (at least 13-cm 

spacing) and highest vertical accuracy (7–8 cm) of any system in the world; as a result, it is quite 

expensive. On the other hand, the system is noninvasive (especially for archaeological sites), acquires 

data very rapidly, and would be used only in selected areas such as archaeological sites or sandbars that 

would normally be surveyed by ground crews. Despite the high accuracy of the system on bare ground, it 

still has problems penetrating dense tamarisk (Tamarix) canopies, which is not much of an issue for 

archaeological sites. However, most sandbars have dense tamarisk groves, which would require ground 

survey inspection, but only in and around the groves. Thus, a combination of Lidar and ground surveys 

would significantly reduce ground survey time and possibly cost, if data collection was also coordinated 

with archaeological site surveys. 

99 
1 Chapter 5. Data Management, Quality Assurance, and Reporting 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

5.1 Introduction 

Reporting, data analysis, modeling, synthesis, and maintaining the integrity of data collected in 

GCDAMP-sponsored projects is a fundamental mission of the GCMRC. Fulfilling this mission is critical 

to allow publication and dissemination of information to understand the status and trends of Grand 

Canyon resources, and how alternative management policies affect those resources. Data management 

may be parsed into basic conceptual components: planning, implementation, and data assurance. These 

activities are tailored for each project and refined through continued learning as a result of analysis, 

modeling, and synthesis. Data repository functions of electronic acquisition, storage, access, and 

preservation are applied uniformly to all projects. This chapter, which is an expansion of the ideas 

introduced in chapter 2 on the development of GCMRC’s core monitoring programs, presents a 

discussion of activities within the Data Acquisition Storage and Analysis (DASA) program that support 

this goal. 

5.2 Data Management Overview – Roles and Responsibilities 

DASA is a research and support group created to ensure the integrity of data that contribute to 

management decisions and actions. DASA’s remote-sensing scientist, biometrics scientist, database, GIS, 

and instrumentation staff work with project scientists and data stewards throughout all phases of 

monitoring to provide end-to-end data management. Data stewards (permanent staff positions) will be 

established within GCMRC for each core monitoring project; data stewards may work with several 

monitoring projects in their area of expertise. The following list of roles clarifies how monitoring project 

tasks are distributed and how DASA interfaces with monitoring projects (fig. 11). 

Roles of project scientists, data stewards: 

• Develop operational plan 

• Develop data assurance—quality control and assessment procedures 

• Develop data collection procedures incorporating best practices 

• Develop metrics for verification, validation, and auditing 

• Document data collection procedures, forms, and standard operating procedures 

• Provide training to project technical and field staff 

• Obtain periodic project reviews (for example, PEP) 

• Provide oversight of cooperators and contractors 

• Create and maintain metadata using FGDC Biological Data Profile standards 

• Scan and upload all field notes and data forms 

• Upload instrument raw data (ASCII text format where possible) 

• Upload to GCMRC database using DASA provided tools 

• Write USGS data reports and journal articles that are approved through the USGS Fundamental 

Science Practices 

• Verify that Web access is current 

 

100 
Data Management Overview

Roles and Responsibilities

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Figure 11. Data management roles and responsibilities overview.

Applied Studies – Scientists – Data Stewards – DASA

Analysis Modeling Reports Synthesis 

Electronic Data Repository – DASA

Acquisition Storage Access Preservation 

 Quality 

 Control and 

 Assessment

Technical 

 Assessment

Verification 

Validation 

 Audits 

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures 

Plan Implement Data Assurance 

Monitoring Projects – Scientists – Data Stewards – DASA

101 
1 Roles of DASA staff: 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

• Provide data architecture design services 

• Provide research biometrician services 

• Provide remote-sensing researcher services 

• Develop and maintain data management and metadata tools 

• Develop Web access and visualization tools 

• Develop GIS ArcServer Web visualization tools and templates 

• Provide general support and training in database, GIS, and remote sensing 

• Procure quadrennial overflights and other remote-sensing missions as needed 

• Provide overflight processing, analysis, and change detection services 

• Maintain database and GIS datasets 

• Provide dynamic Web access to tabular and spatial data, plus final reports 

• Develop archive methods that, wherever possible, are independent of software applications and 

operating systems 

• Through cooperation with IT department 

o Maintain up-to-date functioning servers and disk arrays 

o Oversee tape backups 

o Maintain migration path with stable media to assure archive preservation 

o Oversee offsite backup and archive storage 

• Develop modeling and analysis tools 

• Provide instrumentation and telemetry expertise 

5.3 Data Quality Assurance 

A key role of DASA in support of monitoring projects is data quality assurance. Quality assurance is an 

ongoing data improvement process central to data management, including both quality control and quality 

assessment. Quality control involves developing field data collection protocols, verifying that the 

protocols are being followed, and checking the resulting data for errors. Quality control also includes data 

review, editing, verification, validation, internal consistency checks, and audit procedures. The DASA 

program will assist in creating specialized tools in the form of automated procedures and manual data 

QA/QC tools to perform value domain, data type, formatting, bounds, and outlier checks. 

Quality assessment is an ongoing process of data resolution, accuracy, precision, and sampling design 

evaluations aimed at determining if the project is meeting monitoring objectives. Quality assessment also 

involves developing objectives for data quality during the planning phase and evaluating if the objectives 

were met through statistical analysis of measurement error and, where possible, collection of multiple 

data streams through alternative methods as a means of cross checking. Documentation of error 

assessment methods and results is to be included in reports and as supporting documentation to datasets 

served through the Web. 

5.4 Planning 

The GCDAMP has developed a set of goals and CMINs that GCMRC addresses through well-conceived 

and planned monitoring efforts. Each of these projects undergoes a planning and review phase to ensure 

that fielded projects will achieve specified monitoring objectives. To assure such rigor, the monitoring 

102 
project scientist prepares a detailed operational plan that specifies all aspects of the effort. Development 

and review of the operational plan is facilitated by the DASA biometrician, who may also assist with 

analysis and modeling as needed by individual monitoring projects. The operational plan must receive 

and be responsive to both internal and external peer review before funding is released. A general 

annotated outline of such a plan is provided below to guide monitoring project scientists in the 

preparation of operational plans. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

Executive Summary 

• The Executive Summary section should have summarizing subsections titled Need, Benefits, 

Objectives, Procedures, Personnel, Deliverables, and Budget. It is intended to provide a short 

overview of the project similar to current work-plan entries. 

Introduction 

• The Introduction section should be a broad overview of the need for the monitoring project and 

should summarize how the information is to be used to inform the adaptive management 

program. 

Objectives 

• The Objectives section should introduce how the set of objectives will meet the need and uses 

discussed in the Introduction. It should include a list, as detailed as possible, of tasks that will be 

accomplished and/or metrics that will be produced. Where possible it should describe the 

precision and accuracy of the metric to be estimated, such as “Estimate the annual survival rate of 

age-1 rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach with coefficient of variation < 20%,” rather than 

“Estimate the mortality rate of juvenile rainbow trout.” Such specificity will guide the 

development of the Data Analysis section later in the document. 

Procedures 

• The Procedures section should describe the overall study design to achieve the objectives both 

tactically and methodologically, including details of sampling frequency and location, sample 

methods, data collection and recording procedures (consider providing example data-recording 

sheets with instructions as appendices), and data reduction procedures (for example, how data are 

summarized electronically for later access and analysis). 

Data Analysis 

• The Data Analysis section should describe in exhaustive detail the tactical and statistical 

procedures to be used to produce the items listed under Objectives. If necessary, the description 

should include results of preliminary analyses of previous data to justify sample types (random, 

systematic, etc.) or sample size targets to achieve specified levels of precision and bias. Project 

scientists should consider how to craft both the Procedures and Data Analysis sections so that 

portions can be used for the Methods section of annual reports. 

Schedule and Reporting 

• The Schedule and Reporting section should describe the schedule and timeline for major 

milestones in the study, such as field trips, delivery of trip reports and electronic data, and annual 

report submission. 

Responsibilities 

• The Responsibilities section should clarify the roles of key personnel involved with the project. A 

comprehensive itemization of all major roles is necessary such that reviewers are assured that key 

tasks will be accomplished. 

103 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Budget 

• The Budget section should be sufficiently detailed that reviewers can easily see the cost of major 

project expenses and are assured that all necessary items are included in the budget. 

5.5 Electronic Data Repository 

GCMRC maintains an electronic data repository for archiving and serving project data. Repository 

workflows are illustrated in figure 12. Operationally, data streams may be thought of as either tabular 

physical observations or spatial coverage delineating location, and classifying areas and volumes related 

to the GCMRC CRE base map, which is tied to the GCMRC control network survey. Data streams are 

analyzed and modeled, producing reports that are also housed in the electronic data repository. 

The DASA Data Automation Management System (Msystem) is a newly developed tabular database Web 

server system that automates much of the traditional manual aspects of data management. The only 

interaction necessary with the DASA database coordinator is the initial dataset definition, which is 

defined with a spreadsheet interface. The rest of the Msystem functionality is available to the project data 

steward without any further interaction with the DASA database coordinator. Msystem provides an 

interface for project data stewards to upload data, metadata, and final reports, and subsequently to update 

as necessary with any dataset corrections or updates. The steps listed below outline the path data follow 

from data structure design to access on the Web. 

Msystem Steps: 

• Data Planning 

o Define dataset (the only step that requires DASA interaction) 

o Automatically creates necessary database tables 

o Automatically creates Web page for data query access 

• Raw Data (uploaded upon return from field – provides data vault function) 

o Unedited instrumentation data files 

o Datasheets (electronically scanned in the office) 

o Field notebooks (electronically scanned in the office) 

o Laboratory analyses 

• Quality Assured Edited Data (allows full and/or ongoing partial uploads) 

o Edited instrumentation data files 

o Edited laboratory analyses 

• Web Server 

o Access to quality assured and in some cases provisional data 

o Data steward makes records available after quality assurance SOP 

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) will be a core foundation of the overall core monitoring data 

management strategy. This allows tabular data and model output to be synthesized with geographic data 

such as digital elevation models, orthorectified aerial imagery, and feature surveys (campsites, bed 

104 
formations, etc.). Advanced spatial analysis in support of GCMRC monitoring projects include the 

following: 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

• Creation of specialized maps and intuitive data retrieval specific to individual project needs 

• Consultation and instruction related to GIS operation and spatial data analysis for GCMRC staff 

• Management and dissemination of spatial data 

Acquisition of base layers occurs through various methods such as contractor-supplied aerial imagery, inhouse surveying of physical features, digitizing of tabular data and field notes, and output from models 

and other automated methods. Project scientists and data stewards can then access this centralized GIS 

data to incorporate and analyze specific project data within a comprehensive geographical context (for 

example campsite atlas, sampling data from monitoring native fish populations, backwater area and 

volume estimates, change detection related to varying flow regimes). GIS datasets will be managed, 

stored, and disseminated from a central repository using ArcSDE and the Oracle relational database 

management system. This centralized GIS architecture will provide client access to Web-based GIS 

datasets via the GCMRC Web site via ArcServer, and local access via ArcSDE and ArcMap. 

105 
DASA Electronic Data Repository 

Data Management Workflow

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Figure 12. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

program’s electronic data repository workflow.

Data 

Preservation 

Tape 

Backups 

Archive 

Stable Media 

Data 

Storage 

Oracle 

Database

Spatial GIS 

Data and 

Final 

Reports 

NonSpatial 

Imagery Tabular

GCMRC 

File Server 

Data 

Access 

ESRI 

ArcGIS Server 

GCMRC 

Web Server 

Data 

Acquisition 

ESRI 

Arc 

Catalog

DASA Data 

Input/Validation 

Software

GIS

RmtSensingCor

Data ArchivistDB Coordinator

GCMRC 

‘Products’ 

Application

106 
1 5.6 Analysis and Modeling 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Analyses and modeling of monitoring data improve the understanding of status and trend indicators used 

to inform the GCDAMP decision-making process. Numerous standard and regular analysis and modeling 

tasks are associated with various monitoring programs. 

DASA supports these efforts at a variety of levels: 

• Assuring accessible quality assured data 

• Building customized data queries for efficient access 

• Developing procedural techniques for data mining 

• Providing Web access allowing location, time series, and specific parameter retrievals 

• Image processing to optimize data fidelity and positional accuracy of aerial overflights 

• GIS assessment, analysis, and modeling 

• Biometric/statistical support in conceiving and executing data analysis and modeling 

• Model development and analytical techniques to further the science capability of the GCMRC 

Recent examples of DASA support for data analysis and modeling include the development of an 

automated “PIT Tag Synchronization” application. This tool allows the construction of specimen capture 

histories needed to complete humpback chub assessments using the age-structured mark-recapture model. 

In the past, this process required several weeks of manual data manipulation by technical experts. 

However, the tag synchronization tool now performs the task in about 15 minutes and it can be done 

anytime to provide the most recent capture histories for ASMR modeling. 

DASA analysis and modeling activities also function to refine the overall monitoring process by 

delineating data gaps, providing additional data validation, and discovering data errors that were not 

caught in the original QA/QC process. The DASA staff has recently collaborated with biologists from 

GCMRC, the AZGFD, and USFWS to correct historical data anomalies throughout the entire Grand 

Canyon fish database. This multi-agency effort has resulted in a more reliable database for humpback 

chub and other species assessments. 

5.7 Reporting of Core Monitoring Data, Annual Assessments & Synthesis 

Publication of Core Monitoring Data 

In accordance with USGS policy, the GCMRC will follow Fundamental Science Practice (FSP) 

procedures (U.S. Geological Survey Manual 502.1–502.4) for publishing all monitoring data collected 

through its science program in support of the GCDAMP. To ensure that quality data are collected and 

reported, the methods for collecting monitoring data are peer reviewed by technical experts and published 

as methods reports (either as USGS technical reporting series or scientific journal literature) and often 

through the USGS Data Series reports. For example, Data Series reports have recently been published on 

water temperature data (Voichick and Wright, 2007) and specific conductance data (Voichick, 2008). 

Such reports describe the methods used to collect and quality assure monitoring data, typically including 

a portion of the available data, and they let the reader know where new data will be made available in the 

future. Another example of quality-of-water (QW) data being published by USGS under the FSP is a 

compilation of Lake Powell physical QW parameters from the mid-1960s to present (Vernieu, 2009). 

107 
All surface water data (river stage and discharge) collected for the Colorado River at USGS streamflow 

gages below Glen Canyon Dam are published annually by the USGS and made available through the 

USGS and GCMRC Web sites, following quality assurance procedures described in data series reports. In 

cases of the streamflow records at several of the tributary (Paria and Little Colorado Rivers) and main 

channel Colorado River gaging sites, surface records have been published annually as far back as the 

1920s. The GCMRC intends to follow similar data publication procedures for non-QW type data 

collected as part of its core monitoring program below the dam. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

Under the core monitoring plan, the various data series and associated methods reports shall be completed 

as the various monitoring methods are developed in the physical (goals 7 and 8), biological (goals 1–6), 

sociocultural (goals 9–11,) and data acquisition, storage, and analysis (DASA, goal 12, related to 

remotely sensed data) programs and are peer reviewed through the previously described PEP workshops. 

Although preliminary monitoring data will be reported to the GCDAMP during TWG and AMWG 

meetings (typically in the form of slide presentations), their ultimate value is derived through their 

publication as finalized information. When the FSP process is complete, then the final data associated 

with individual resource goals shall be made more widely available to land and resource management 

agencies and other interested users through the USGS and GCMRC Internet sites, and they are citable 

within various types of annual reports. 

Annual Reporting Workshop 

Another critical element of the core monitoring plan consists of transferring the monitoring information to 

resource managers in a timely manner and format that makes them relevant and useful in developing 

GCDAMP recommendations to decision makers. The GCMRC will convene annual workshops with 

members of the TWG, science cooperators, and other interested parties each January to review progress 

on projects funded by the GCDAMP. Special emphasis will be made to showcase new information each 

year from the funded core monitoring projects. During these annual reporting workshops, new monitoring 

data for each of the resource goals in the GCDAMP’s strategic plan will be reviewed following a 

summary of the related core monitoring information needs included in the strategic plan, as well as the 

strategic science questions included in the GCMRC’s approved 5-year Monitoring and Research Plan. 

GCMRC will identify how the core monitoring data and associated annual analyses of the data relate to 

the various information needs and science questions. 

These reports will also include the outcome of any related uses (research, synthesis, or management 

actions undertaken) that have occurred using the core monitoring datasets. The workshops may also set 

the stage for additional, ongoing discussions and use of the current and historical data during the TWG 

meetings that ensue throughout the year. The goal is to make core monitoring available to users as 

expeditiously as possible, consistent with USGS FSP. 

Annual Resources Fact Sheets on Status and Trends 

As core monitoring data for the various resources of interest to the GCDAMP are annually published, 

they will also be more formally reported to resource managers, other scientists, and the general public as a 

series of USGS Fact Sheets. These publications are intended to provide short summaries of status and 

trends of the resources of interest below Glen Canyon Dam and are developed mostly on the basis of 

monitoring data and associated analyses required for assessment purposes. Examples of these fact sheets 

include those recently published by the GCMRC on humpback chub and sediment resources (USGS Fact 

Sheets 2009-3035, 2007-3113, and 2007-3020). The value of these annual publications is that they are 

citable science products that summarize published monitoring data (and other related research findings 

that have been previously published) that can be released widely through Internet distribution at relatively 

108 
109 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

low cost to the GCDAMP. Their format is also typically aimed at the nontechnical audience of resource 

managers and other interested members of the public and they provide current knowledge of resource 

state and the efficacy of past management actions. These reports should contain at least one time plot 

showing the full historic trend, going back as far as possible, of major indicators (abundances, storages, 

counts, etc.) Graphs and other visual results should be accompanied by a detailed caption (or associated 

text) describing the key lessons to be derived from the graphic. 

SCORE Reports 

The GCMRC published USGS Circular 1282 (see Gloss and others, 2005) to provide a decade-scale summary of the 

status and trends associated with all of the natural and sociocultural resources of concern to the GCDAMP. The 

2005 report was informally referred to as the SCORE report, or State of the Colorado River Ecosystem report; it was 

specifically intended to help managers gain an understanding about how the resources below the dam had responded 

to new operations associated with the 1996 Record of Decision (modified low fluctuating flows). The effort to 

produce the SCORE report was substantial. The publication of the SCORE report and similar efforts to report core 

monitoring and research findings are likely warranted every 5 years to formally document the relationship among 

dam operations, other factors, and responses of Colorado River ecosystem resources in Grand Canyon. During the 

periods between publications, the annual fact sheets described above will keep managers updated on changes in 

resource trends. Over time, the SCORE reports will focus more on integrated analyses, cause and effect, and 

monitored responses to management actions (both flow and nonflow treatments). These types of new information 

might be derived from additional related research activities, such as ecosystem modeling, knowledge assessments on 

individual resources, and syntheses of interdisciplinary resources and interactions. 
References 

Adler, Robert W., 2007, Restoring Colorado River Ecosystems; A Troubled Sense of Immensity, Island 

Press, Washington DC, 311 p. 

Albrecht, B., Sanderson, T., and Holden, P.B., 2008, Razorback sucker studies on Lake Mead, Nevada, 

and Arizona, 1996-2007 Comprehensive Report, PR-1093-2, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, 

NV, and Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, NV. 121 p. 

Anders, P., Bradford, M., Higgins, P., Nislow, K.H., Rabeni, C., and Tate, C., 2001, Final Report of the 

Aquatic Protocol Evaluation Program Panel, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 

Andersen, M.E., Ackerman, M.W., Hilwig, K.D., Fuller, A.E., and Alley, P.D., in prep., Evidence of 

young humpback chub overwintering in the mainstem Colorado River, Marble Canyon, Arizona, USA. 

Anderson, C.R. and Wright, S. A., 2007, Development and application of a water temperature model for 

the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Hydrological Science and 

Technology (Proceedings of the American Institute of Hydrology Annual Meeting and International 

Conference) 23 (1-4) 13-26. 

Anderson, L.S. and Ruffner, G.A., 1987, Effects of post-Glen Canyon Dam flow regime on the old high 

water line plant community along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies Research PB88-183504, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Anderson, R.O., and Gutreuter, S.J., 1983, Length, weight, and associated structural indices, in Nielsen, 

L.A., and Johnson, D.L., eds., Fisheries Techniques: Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries Society, 

p. 283-300. 

Araújo, F.G., Pinto, B.C.T., and Teixeira, T.P., 2009, Longitudinal patterns of fish assemblages in a large 

tropical river in southeastern Brazil: evaluating environmental influences and some concepts in river 

ecology: Hydrobiologia, v. 618, p. 89-107 

Atkinson, A.J., Trenham, P.C., Fisher, R.N., Hathaway, S.A., Johnson, B.S., Torres, S.G., and Moore, 

Y.C., 2004, Designing Monitoring Programs in an Adaptive Management Context for Regional 

Multiple Species Conservation Plans. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, 

Sacramento, CA., 69 p. 

Balsom, J. R., 1999, Cultural resources and the Glen Canyon Dam-Colorado River experimental flow of 

1996. Pg 183-194 in van Riper, C. III and M.A. Stuart, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial 

Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau. U.S. Geological Survey/FRESC Report Series 

USGSFRESC/ 

Beals, E.W., 1984, Bray-Curtis Ordination: an effective strategy for analysis of multivariate ecological 

data. Advances in Ecological Research, 14:1-49. 

Benenati, P. L., Shannon, P., Haden, Joseph, A., Straka, K., and Blinn, Dean, W., 2002, Monitoring and 

Research: the Aquatic Food Base in the Colorado River, Arizona during 1991-2001. Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, Ariz., 227 p 

Benke, A.C., and Wallace, J.B., 1980, Trophic Basis of Production among Net-Spinning Caddisflies in a 

Southern Appalachian Stream. Ecology 61(1): 108-118. 

Berlin, G. L., Brockhaus, J., Coleman, T., Haack, B., Johnston, C., McKnight, C., Murtha, P., and 

Warner, T., 1998, Final Report of the GCMRC Remote Sensing Protocols Review Panel, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona, 17 p. 
Bestgen, K.R., Hawkins, J.A., White, G.C., Christopherson, K.D., Hudson, J.M., Fuller, M.H., Kitcheyan, 

C., Brunson, R., Badame, P., Haines, G.B., Jackson, J.A., Walford, C.D., and Sorensen, T.A., 2007, 

Population status of Colorado pikeminnow in the Green River Basin, Utah and Colorado: Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society, v. 136, p. 1356-1380. 

Beus, S.B., Avery, C.C., Stevens, L., Cluer, B., Kaplinski, M., Anderson, P., Bennett, J., Brod, C., Hazel, 

J., Gonzales, M., Mayes, H., Protiva, F., and Courson, J., 1992, The influence of variable discharge 

regimes on Colorado River sand bars below Glen Canyon Dam, chap. 6, in The influence of variable 

discharge regimes on Colorado River sand bars below Glen Canyon Dam: Final report, submitted to 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Bureau of Reclamation, 61 p. 

Beus, S.S., David, J.N., Lojko, F.B., and Stevens, L.E., 1992, Colorado River investigations XI, Report 

submitted to Grand Canyon National Park, on file at USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 175 p. 

Brian, N.J., and Thomas, J.R., 1984, 1983 Colorado River sand bar campsite inventory: National Park 

Service, Division of Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz. 

Brown, B.T. and. Stevens, L.E., 1992, Winter abundance, age structure, and distribution of bald eagles 

along the Colorado River, Arizona, Southwestern Naturalist 37: 404-435. 

Brown, B.T. and. Stevens, L.E., 1997, Winter bald eagle distribution is inversely correlated with human 

activity along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. J. Raptor Research 31:7-10. 

Brown, B.T., Carothers, S.W., and Johnson, R.R., 1987, Grand Canyon birds: Tucson, University of 

Arizona Press, 302 p. 

Brown, B.T., Carothers, S.W., Johnson, R.R., Riffey, M.B., and Stevens, L.E., 1994, Checklist of the 

birds of the Grand Canyon region. Grand Canyon Natural History Association, Grand Canyon. 

Brown, B.T., Mesta, R., Stevens, L.E., and Weisheit, J., 1989, Changes in winter distribution of bald 

eagles along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Journal of Raptor Research, v. 23, p. 110–

113. 

Brown, B.T., Stevens, L.E., and Yates, T.A., 1998, Influences of fluctuating river flows on bald eagle 

foraging behavior: Condor, v. 100, p. 745–748 

Brown, C.A. and Hahn-O’Neil, M. G., 1987, The effects of flows in the Colorado River on reported and 

observed boating accidents in Grand Canyon, National Technical Information Service PB88-183553, 

Washington, D.C. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, Law of the River, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html 

Burt, W.H., 1976, A field guide to the mammals: Field marks of all North American species found north 

of Mexico, third edition. Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 

Busch, D.E. and Trexler, J.C., 2003, eds., Monitoring ecosystems: interdisciplinary approaches for 

evaluating ecoregional initiatives: Washington, D.C., Island Press, 447 p. 

Carothers, S.W., Aitchison, S.W., and Johnson, R.R., 1979, Natural resources, white-water recreation and 

river management alternatives on the Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Pp. 253-

260 in Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, Volume 1. 

Carothers, S.W., and Aitchison, S.W., eds., 1976, An ecological survey of the riparian zones of the 

Colorado River between Lees Ferry and the Grand Cliffs: final report. Grand Canyon National Park 

Technical Report Series No. 10: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service (Grand Canyon National Park, Colorado River Research Series, contribution no. 38, xiii + 251 

p., Grand Canyon, Ariz.). 

111 
Carothers, S.W., and Minckley, C.O., 1981, A survey of the fishes, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic 

plants of the Colorado River and selected tributaries from Lees Ferry to Separation Rapids, final report: 

Salt Lake City, Utah, Water and Power Resources Service. 

Carver, M., Herrmann, H., Miller, M., Roth, B., and Sorensen, J., in prep, Investigations of anatomical 

and genetic variation within western Oxyloma (Pulmonata: Succineidae) with respect to the federally 

endangered Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis): University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Chapin, F.S., III, Torn, M.S., and Tateno, M., 1996, Principles of ecosystem sustainability: The American 

Naturalist, v. 148, no. 6, p. 1016-1037 

Clark, K.R., 1993, Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure: Australian 

Journal of Ecology, v. 18, p. 117–143. 

Cobb, N. and Delph, R., 2005, Developing an Arthropod Monitoring Program for Upland Habitats in the 

Southern Colorado Plateau Network. Unpublished report to the Southern Colorado Plateau I&M 

Network of NPS 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2007, Abundance Trends and Status of the Little Colorado River Population of 

Humpback Chub: An Update Considering 1989–2006 Data, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 

2007-1402, 53 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2008, Active adaptive management for native fish conservation in the Grand Canyon: 

Implementation and evaluation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, 173 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River 

population of humpback chub; an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Pine, W.E. III, Walters, C.J., Van Havergeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, H.C., 2006, 

Abundance Trends and Status of the Little Colorado River Population of Humpback Chub: North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management v. 26, p. 26-78. 

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009, Topographic Change Detection at Select Archeological 

Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5116/]. 

Colorado River trips in Grand Canyon. Red Lake Books, Flagstaff. 

Cooper, D., Battaglia, L., Batzer, D., Chong, G., Hudak, A., and Young, M., 2008, Review of terrestrial 

monitoring protocols for the Grand Canyon. Report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) Final 

Report submitted February 4, 2008. 31p. 

Davis, P. A., 2004, Review of results and recommendations from the GCMRC 2000-2003 remote-sensing 

initiative for monitoring environmental resources within the Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open File Report 2004-1206, 73 p. 

Doelle, W. H., 2000, Final Report: Cultural Resource Program Assessment. Ms. on file, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Dolan, R., Howard, A., and Gallenson, A., 1974, Man’s impact on the Colorado River in the Grand 

Canyon: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 392–401. 

Douglas, M.E., and Marsh, P.C., 1996, Population estimates/population movements of Gila cypha, an 

endangered cyprinid fish in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona: Copeia, v. 1996, no. 1, p. 15–28. 

Draut, A. E. Hazel, J. E. Jr., Fairley, H. C., and Brown, C. R., 2008, Aeolian Reworking Of Sediment 

Deposits From The March 2008 Grand Canyon High-Flow Experiment. Poster presented at Coming 

Together: Coordination of Science and Restoration Activities for the Colorado River Ecosystem 

Conference, November 19, 2008, Tempe, Arizona. 

112 
Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009, 2007 Weather and aeolian sand-transport 

data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2009-1098, 110 p. [ http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1098/]. 

Drost, C.A., Paxton, E.H., Sogge, M.K., and Whitfield, M.J., 2003, Food habits of the Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher during the nesting season. Studies in Avian Biology 26:96–103. 

Fairley, H., Coggins, L., Fritzinger, C., Gonzales, M., Gushue, T., Hueftle, S., Kennedy, T., Liszewski, 

M., Melis, T., Ralston, B., Topping, D., Vernieu, W., and Wright, S., 2005, Provisional Core 

Monitoring Plan Final Draft. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Fairley, H.C., Bungart, P.W., Coder, C.M., Huffman, J., Samples, T.L., and Balsom, J.R., 1994, The 

Grand Canyon river corridor survey project: archeological survey along the Colorado River between 

Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Rapid: Flagstaff, Ariz., Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies Program, cooperative agreement no. 9AA-40-07920. 

Flynn, M.E. and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross 

sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern Arizona, 

1992-1999: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Open-File Report 03-4104. 39p. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Science Advisors, 2007, Rapid response review: A 

draft report to the technical work group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: 

Recommended protocols for core monitoring of sediment, Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 4 p. 

Gloss, S.P. and Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2005, Fishes of Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, 

T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1282, p. 33-56. 

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand 

Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, (overview, plus 13 chapters) 220p. 

Gorman, O. T. and Stone, D.M., 1999, Ecology of spawning humpback chub, Gila cypha, in the Little 

Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona, Environmental Biology of Fishes 55: 115-133. 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 2001, Strategic Plan, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Final Draft, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Hall, R.O., Wallace, J.B., and Eggert, S.L., 2000, Organic matter flow in stream food webs with reduced 

detrital resource base. Ecology 81(12): 3445-3463. 

Harpman, D. A., 1999, The Economic Cost of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., 

Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., editors, The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon. Geophysical 

Monograph 110: Washington, D.C, American Geophysical Union. 

Hazel, J., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006, Influence of a dam on fine-sediment 

storage in a canyon river, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, F01025, 16 p. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and bathymetric 

changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, 

R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical 

Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 161-184. 

Holmes, J., Spence, J.R., and Sogge, M.K., 2005, Birds of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: a 

synthesis of status, trends and dam operation effects. Chapter 7 In S.P. Gloss, J.E. Lovich, and T.S. 

Melis, eds, The State of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon, U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1282 p.123-138. 

Howard, A. and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Journal of 

Geology 89: no.3, p. 269-298. 

113 
Howard, A.D., 1975, Establishment of benchmark study sites along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

National Park for monitoring of beach erosion caused by natural forces and human impact. University 

of Virginia Grand Canyon Study Technical Report no. 1, 182 p. 

Hueftle, S.J., and Stevens, L.E., 2001, Experimental flood effects on the limnology of Lake Powell 

reservoir, southwestern USA: Ecological Applications, v. 11, p. 644–656. 

Jones, Jack, Kennedy, Robert H., Nestler, John, Robertson, Dale, Ruane, Richard J., Schladow, S. 

Geoffrey, 2001, Final Report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center Integrated Water Quality Program (IWQP), 39 p. 

Kaeding, L.R. and Zimmerman, M.A., 1983, Life History and Ecology of the Humpback Chub in the 

Little Colorado River and Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 112, no. 5, p. 577-594. 

Kaplinski, M., Behan, J., Hazel, J.E. Jr. Parnell, R.A., and Fairley, H.C., 2005, Recreational Values and 

Campsites in the Colorado River Ecosystem, Chapter 12 in The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

in Grand Canyon: A Report of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 1991-2004, USGS 

Circular 1282. 

Kearsley, L.H., and Quartaroli, R., 1997, Effects of a sand bar/habitat building flow on campsites in 

Grand Canyon: Final report of Applied Technology Associates for the Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies, 18 p. 

Kearsley, L.H., and Warren, K., 1993, River campsites in Grand Canyon National Park: inventories and 

effects of discharge on campsite size and availability (final report): National Park Service, Division of 

Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park. 

Kearsley, M.J.C. and Ayers, T.J., 1999, Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of 

victory and vice versa. In Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds. The 

controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical 

Monograph Series, 110 p. 309-327. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N., Yard, H., Lightfoot, D., Brantley, S., Carpenter, G., and Frey J., 2006, 

Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor of the Grand 

Canyon: an integrative approach: Final report from Northern Arizona University submitted to the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 218p. 

King, T.F., n.d., Cultural Resources Compliance for the Effects of Operations of Glen Canyon Dam on 

Downstream Historic Properties. Unpublished report dated August 6, 1999, prepared per Order No. 

00pG4000152 for Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

Korman, J. and Campana, S.E., 2009, Effects of hydropeaking on nearshore habitat use and growth of 

age-0 rainbow trout in a large regulated river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 76-

87. 

Korman, J., 2009, Early life history dynamics of rainbow trout in a large regulated river, Ph.D. 

Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 214 p. 

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E. III, and Melis, T.S., 2005, Effects of the experimental fluctuating 

flows from Glen Canyon Dam in 2003 and 2004 on the early life history stage of rainbow trout in the 

Colorado River. Final Report, submitted to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., Available: 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/libraryreports/biological/Fish_studies/Ecometric/Korman2005.pdf 

Kurtz, J., Jackson, L, and Fisher, W., 2001, Strategies for evaluating indicators based on guidelines from 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development. Ecological Indicators 1: 

49-60. 

114 
Lamon, E.C., III and Qian, S.S., 2008, Regional scale stressor-response models in aquatic ecosystems: 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 44, no. 3, p. 771-781 

Linder, C., Hoffnagle, T., Persons, B., Choudhury, A., and Cole, R., 2008, Distribution and prevalence of 

parasite of fishes in the Colorado River and selected tributaries in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Flagstaff, 

Ariz., Report to USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center in fulfillment of Cooperative 

Agreement 05WRAG0052, 36 p. 

Loomis, J, Douglas, A.J., and Harpman, D. A., 2005a, Recreation Use Values and Nonuse Values of Glen 

and Grand Canyons, Chapter 9 in The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon: A 

Report of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 1991-2004. USGS Circular 1282. 

Loomis, J., Cole, D., Foti, P., Manning, R., Moisey, R.N., and Ratcliffe, R., 2005b, Final Report of the 

Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) on the Recreation Monitoring Program of the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Ms. Report dated September 28, 2005, submitted to the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. 

Lovich, J.E. and Melis, T.S., 2007, The state of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon, Lessons 

from 10 years of adaptive ecosystem management, Intl. J. River Basin Management 5(3): 207–221. 

McCune, B, and Beals, E. W., 1993, History of the development of Bray-Curtis ordination, In: Fralish JS, 

McIntosh, Loucks OL (eds) John T. Curtis: fifty years of Wisconsin plant ecology. Wisconsin 

Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, Madison, WI, p 67–80 

McCune, B. and Grace, J.B., 2002, Analysis of Ecological Communities, MjM Software Design, 

Gleneden Beach, Oregon. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in situ 

monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona. Pp 21–27 in J. Bogen, T. Fergus and 

D.E. Walling, eds., Erosion and sediment transport measurement in rivers: technological and 

methodological advances, IAHS Press Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 283 p. 

Meretsky, V.J. and Stevens , L.E., 2000, Kanab ambersnail, an endangered succineid snail in 

southwestern USA. Tentacle 8:8-9. 

Meretsky, V.J., Wegner, D.L., and Stevens, L.E., 2000, Balancing endangered species and ecosystems: a 

case study of adaptive management in Grand Canyon. Environmental Management 25:579-586. 

Miller, R.R., 1946, Gila cypha, a remarkable new species of cyprinid fish from the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36(12): 409-415. 

Minchin, P.R.,1987, An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. 

Vegetation 69:89-107. 

Minckley, C.O., 1996, Observations on the biology of the humpback chub in the Colorado River Basin, 

1908-1990, Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

National Research Council, 1992, Long-term monitoring workshop for the Grand Canyon: October 5-6, 

1992 Beckman Center, Irvine, California, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies document, Flagstaff. 

National Research Council, 1994, Review of the Draft Federal Long-Term Monitoring Plan for the 

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., p. 30. 

National Research Council, 1996, River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon, National Academy 

Press, Washington, D.C., 226 p. 

National Research Council, 1987, River and dam management: a review of the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, National Academy Press, Washington. 

115 
National Research Council, 1991, Colorado River ecology and dam management, National Academy 

Press, Washington. 

Nichols, J.D. and Williams, B.K., 2006, Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 

21(12):668-673. 

Odum, E.P., 1977, The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline: Science, v. 195, no. 4284, 

p. 1289-1293 

Palmer, C. J. and Landis, E. B., 2002, Lake Mead National Recreation Area Resource Management 

Division quality system management plan for environmental data collection projects, Harry Reid 

Center for Environmental Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 40 pp. 

Palmer, M., Baron, J., Dale, V., Gunderson, L., Howard, A., Kitchell, J., Robertson, D., Schwartz, D., 

Watkins, J., and Garrett,.D.,2004, A Review of the GCMRC Food Base Science Program by the 

GCDAMP Science Advisors. Unpublished Report to the GCMRC. 

Paukert, C.P., Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Flaccus, C.E., 2006, Distribution and movement of humpback chub 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, based on recaptures. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 135:539-544. 

Phillips, B. G., Phillips, A. M., III, Theroux, M., Downs, J., 1977, A vegetation map of the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon National Park Report, Grand Canyon. 

Phillips, B.G., Phillips, A.M. III, and Schmidt-Bernzott, M.A., 1987, Annotated checklist of vascular 

plants of Grand Canyon National Park. Grand Canyon Natural History Association Monographs No. 7, 

Grand Canyon. 

Pine, W.E., III, Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., and Kitchell, J.F., 2009, Counterintuitive responses of fish 

populations to management actions: Some common causes and implications for predictions based on 

ecosystem modeling: Fisheries, v. 34, no., 4, p. 165-180. 

Porter, M.E., 2002, Riparian vegetation responses to contrasting managed flows of the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. Thesis (Master’s) Northern Arizona University 

Ralston, B.E., 2005, Riparian vegetation and associated wild-life, Chapter 6 in S.P. Gloss, J.E. Lovich, 

and T.S. Melis, eds, The State of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon. U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1282, p. 103-112 

Ralston, B.E., Davis , P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall , J. M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National 

Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1216, 37 p. 

Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Rundall, J., Weber, R.A., and Davis, L., 2005, A GIS vegetation database of 

the Colorado River ecosystem in Arizona, GCRMC 2005 Science Symposium, State of the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon, October 25-27, 2005, Tucson, Ariz., 1p. 

Rehn, A.C., 2009, Benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of biological condition below hydropower 

dams on west slope Sierra Nevada streams, California, USA: River Research and Applications, v. 25, p. 

208-228 

Ricklefs, R.E., 1993, The Economy of Nature, Third Edition: New York, NY, W.H. Freeman, 576 p. 

Rosi-Marshall, E. J., and Wallace, J. B.. 2002, Invertebrate food webs along a stream resource gradient. 

Freshwater Biology 47:129-141. 

Rubin, D.M. and Topping, D. J.. 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation and grainsize regulation of suspended-sediment transport (a), and tracking changes in bed-sediment grain size 

(b). Water Resources Research 37: 133-146. 

116 
Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., and Topping, D.J., 1998, Relation of inversely graded deposits to suspendedsediment grain-size evolution during the 1996 Flood Experiment in Grand Canyon, Geology 26: 99-

102. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J. Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, Recent 

sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union 83(25): 273, 277-278. 

Ruffner, G. A., Czaplewski, N.J., and Carothers, S.W., 1978, Distribution and natural history of some 

mammals from the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, Journal of the Arizona-Nevada 

Academy of Science 13:85-91. 

Schmidt, J.C. and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 1986, 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1493, 74 p. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., 2004, System-wide changes in the distribution 

of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Bright Angel Creek, 

Arizona. Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona, 

available at http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf. 

Schmidt, J.C., Webb, R.H., Marzolf, R.G., Valdez, R.A. and Stevens, L.E., 1998, Science and values in 

river restoration in the Grand Canyon. BioScience 48:735-747. 

Shelby, B., 1976, Use levels and crowding in the Grand Canyon: National Park Service, Colorado River 

Research Program, River Contact Study, final report, pt. 3. 

Silverston, E. and Laursen, E.M., 1976, Patterns Of Scour And Fill In Pool-Rapid Rivers, Pp. 125-136, 

Proceedings of the 3rd Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, Denver, CO. 

Singh, A., 1989, Digital change detection techniques using remotely sensed data, International Journal of 

Remote Sensing. 10: 989-1003 

Sogge, M.K., Tibbitts, T.J., and Petterson, J. R., 1997, Status and breeding ecology of the southwestern 

willow flycatcher in the Grand Canyon, Western Birds 28:142-157. 

Sorensen, J., 2005, Kanab Ambersnail 2005 Progress Report: Status of translocation populations and 

initial results from the November 2004 habitat mitigation experiment, Nongame and Endangered 

Wildlife Program, Technical Report 243, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 

Spence, J., 2006, The Riparian and Aquatic Bird Communities along the Colorado River from Glen 

Canyon Dam to Lake Mead, 1996-2000, Final report to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 283 p. 

Stanford, J.A. and Ward, J.V., 2001, Revisiting the serial discontinuity concept: Regulated Rivers: 

Research and Management, v. 17, p. 303-310 

Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J. P., and Blinn, D. W., 1997c, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona, USA: Dam, tributary and geomorphological influences, Regulated Rivers-Research & 

Management 13:129-149. 

Stevens, L.E. , 1989, The history of biological research in Grand Canyon National Park. Pp 4.3–4.8 in 

Spamer, E. (editor), Bibliography of the Grand Canyon and the Lower Colorado River from 1540, 2nd 

ed.., Grand Canyon Nat. Hist. Assoc. Monogr. 8, Grand Canyon. 

Stevens, L.E. and Gold, B. D., 2003, A long-term monitoring program for adaptive management of the 

Colorado River ecosystem in Glen and Grand canyons, Pp. 101-134 in Busch, D. and J. Trexler, 

editors, Interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, New York. 

117 
Stevens, L.E. and Ayers, T.J., 2002, The biodiversity and distribution of alien vascular plant and animals 

in the Grand Canyon region in Tillman, B., ed., Nonnative species in the Sonoran Desert: Tucson, 

University of Arizona Press. pp 241-265. 

Stevens, L.E. and Waring, G.L., 1986, The effects of post-dam flooding on riparian substrates, vegetation 

and invertebrate populations in the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon Arizona, Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies, executive summaries of technical reports, NTIS no. PB-183488. 

Stevens, L.E., 1976, An insect inventory of Grand Canyon, Pp. 141-145 & appendix in Carothers, S.W. 

and S.W. Aitchison (eds.), An ecological survey of the riparian zone of the Colorado River between 

Lees Ferry and the Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona. National Park Service, Colorado River Research Series 

Tech. Rept. No.10, Grand Canyon. 

Stevens, L.E., Ayers, T.J.,, Bennett , J.B.,, .Christensen, K,, Kearsley, M.J.C., Meretsky , V.J., Phillips, 

A.M., III, Parnell, R.A., Spence, J., Sogge, M.K., Springer, A.E., and Wegner, D.L., 2001, Planned 

flooding and Colorado River riparian trade-offs downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. 

Ecological Applications 11:701-710. 

Stevens, L.E., Buck, K.A., Brown , B.T., and Kline, N., 1997a, Dam and geomorphic influences on 

Colorado River waterbird distribution, Grand Canyon, Arizona, Regulated Rivers: Research & 

Management 13:151-169. 

Stevens, L.E., Meretsky, V.J., Nelson, C.B., and Sorensen, J.A., 1998, The endangered Kanab ambersnail 

at Vaseys Paradise, Grand Canyon, Arizona: 1997 final report: U.S. Department of the Interior, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center report, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Stevens, L.E., Protiva, F.R., Kubly, D.M., Meretsky, V.J., and Petterson, J.R., 1997b, The ecology of 

Kanab ambersnail (Succineidae: Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis Pilsbry, 1948) at Vaseys Paradise, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, Final Report to US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies Program, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., and Brown, B.T., 1995, Flow regulation, geomorphology, and 

Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Ecological Applications, v 5, p. 

1025-1039. 

Stewart, W., Larkin, K., Orland, B., and Anderson, D., 2003, Boater preferences for beach characteristics 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Journal of Environmental Management 69, p. 201-211. 

Stewart, W., Larkin, K., Orland, B., Anderson, D., Manning, R., Cole, D., Taylor, J., and Tomar, N., 

2000, Preferences of recreation user groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: Final report to the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 98-FG-40-0190. 

Stohlgren, T.J., J.F.Quinn, M. Ruggiero, and G. S. Waggoner, 1995, Status of biotic inventories in U.S. 

national parks. Biological Conservation 71: 97-106. 

Stone, D.M. and Gorman, O. T., 2006. Ontogenesis of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Little Colorado River, Arizona. American Midland Naturalist 155:123-135. 

Stow, D. A., Tinney, L. R., and Estes, J. E., 1980, Deriving land use/land cover change statistics from 

Landsat: A study of prime agricultural land. Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on 

Remote Sensing of Environment held in Ann Arbor in 1980 (Ann Arbor Michigan; Environmental 

Research Institute of Michigan) pp1227-1237. 

Sublette, J.E., Stevens , L.E., Shannon, J.P.. 1998, Chironomidae (Diptera) of the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.A., I: Taxonomy and ecology. The Great Basin Naturalist 58:97-146. 

Suttkus, R.D. and Clemmer, G.H., 1977, The humpback chub, Gila cypha, in the Grand Canyon area of 

the Colorado River: Occasional Papers of the Tulane University Museum of Natural History, v. 1, p. 1-

30. 

118 
Suttkus, R.D. and Clemmer, G.H., 1979, Fishes of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, in 

Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks: National Park 

Service Transactions and Proceedings Series, v. 5, p. 599–604. 

Suttkus, R.D., Clemmer, G.H., and Jones, C., 1978, Mammals of the riparian region of the Colorado 

River in the Grand Canyon area of Arizona. Occasional Papers of the Tulane University Museum of 

Natural History Number 2, Belle Chasse. 

Topping, D. J., Melis, T. S., Rubin, D. M., and Wright, S. A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using a laseracoustic system, Pp. 2507−2514 in C. Hu and Y. Tan, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth International 

Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18−21, 2004. Tsinghua University Press, Yichang, 

China. 

Topping, D. J., Rubin, D. M., and Schmidt, J. C., 2005, Regulation of sand transport in the Colorado 

River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year timescales. Sedimentology 

52: 1133-1153. 

Topping, D. J., Rubin, D. M., Schmidt, J. C., Hazel, J. E., Jr., Melis, T. S., Wright, S. A., Kaplinski, M., 

Draut, A. E., and Breedlove, M. J., 2006a, Comparison of sediment-transport and bar-response results 

from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2–6, 

2006, http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/index.html. 

Topping, D. J., Schmidt, J. C., and Vierra, L. E. Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona — May 8, 1921, 

through September 30, 2000, U.S .Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p. 

Topping, D. J., Wright, S. A., Melis, T. S., and Rubin, D. M., 2006b, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laser-diffraction 

instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency 

Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/index.html 

Topping, D. J., Wright, S. A., Rubin, D. M., and Melis, T. S., 2007, Draft report to the technical work 

group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Recommended protocols for core 

monitoring of sediment within the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Part IV – 

developing a scientifically based long-term monitoring plan for the GCDAMP, USGS Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 34 p. 

Topping, D.J., 1997, Physics of flow, sediment transport, hydraulic geometry, and channel geomorphic 

adjustment during flash floods in an ephemeral river, the Paria River, Utah and Arizona, PhD 

Dissertation, University of Washington, 406 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D. M., and Vierra, L.E. Jr., 2000a, Colorado River sediment transport 1. Natural 

sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resources Research 36: 515-

542. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M, Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, P.J. III, and Bennett, J.P., 1999, Linkage between grainsize evolution and sediment depletion during Colorado River floods, Pp 71-98 in R.H. Webb, J.C. 

Schmidt, G.R. Marzolf, and R.A. Valdez. eds. The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon.. 

Geophysical Monograph 110. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzell, P.J.I., and Corson, I.C.. 2000b, Colorado River 

sediment transport 2. Systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply limitation. Water 

Resources Research 36(2): 543-570. 

Townsend, C.R., Uhlmann, S.S., and Matthaei, C.D., 2008, Individual and combined responses of stream 

ecosystems to multiple stressors: Journal of Applied Ecology v. 45, no. 6, p. 1810-1819 

119 
Turner, K., LaVoie, A.M., Ronning, C.J., Sharp, R.M., Palmer, C.J., and Miller, J.M., 2009, SNAP 

Science and Research Strategy: Southern Nevada Agency Partnership, Las Vegas, Nevada, p.150. 

Turner, R.M. and Karpiscak, M.M., 1980, Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River between 

Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1132. 125 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996, Record of Decision, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final 

Environmental Impact Statement: Washington, D.C., Office of the Secretary of the Interior, 15 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Colorado River Storage Project, Coconino County, Arizona: Salt Lake city, Utah, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office 337 p.. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002a, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) recovery goals: Amendment and 

supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002b, Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) recovery goals: 

Amendment and supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002c, Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) recovery goals: 

Amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a, Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) recovery goals 

(2008 revisions): Amendment and supplement to the Colorado squawfish recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) recovery goals (2008 revisions): 

Amendment and supplement to the humpback chub recovery plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008c, Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) recovery goals (2008 

Revisions): Amendment and supplement to the razorback sucker recovery plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Monitoring and Research Plan in Support of the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, 149 p. 

Urquhart, N. S., Auble, G.T., Blake, J.G., Bolger, D.T., Gerrodette, T., Leibowitz, S.G., Lightfoot, D.C., 

and Taylor, A.H, 2000, Report of a peer review panel on terrestrial aspects of the biological resources 

program of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. Report to Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, US Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86001. 54 pp. 

Urquhart, N. S., Paulsen, S. G., and Larsen, D. P., 1998, Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends 

over time, Ecological Applications 8: 246–257. 

Valdez, R. A. and Ryel, R. J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona, Final Report to Bureau of Reclamation, Contract no. 0-CS40-09110, BIO/WEST Report no. TR-250-08. Salt Lake City, Utah. 286 p. 

Valdez, R.A. and Masslich, W.J., 1999, Evidence of reproduction by humpback chub in a warm spring of 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 44, no. 3, p. 384-387. 

Van Haverbeke, D. R. and Stone, D. M., 2009, Stock assessment and fisheries monitoring activities in the 

Little Colorado River within Grand Canyon during 2008., Annual Report to the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Interagency Acquisition no. 01-3022-R1009, 

120 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Document no. USFWS-AZNFWCO-FL-09-001. Flagstaff, Arizona. 110 

p. 

Vernieu, W.S., 2009, Physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon Dam 

releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964–2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 471, 23 p. 

Vernieu, W. S., Hueftle, S. J., and Gloss, S. P., 2005, Water Quality in Lake Powell and the Colorado 

River, Chapter 4 in The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon: A Report of the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 1991-2004. USGS Circular 1282. 

Vinebrooke, R. D., Cottingham, K. L., Norberg, J., Scheffer, M., Dodson, S. I., Maberly, S. C., and 

Sommer, U., 2004, Impacts of multiple stressors on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: the role of 

species co-tolerance: Oikos, v. 104, no. 3, p. 451-457 

Vinson, M. R., 2001, Long-term dynamics of an invertebrate assemblage downstream from a large dam. 

Ecological Applications 11(3): 711-730. 

Voichick, N. and Wright, S. A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and tributaries 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988-2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey Data Series 251. 

Voichick, Nicholas, 2008, Specific conductance in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, northern Arizona, 1988-2007: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 364, 16 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/364/]. 

Walters, C. J., 1986, Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan Publishing 

Company. 

Walters, C. J., and Holling, C. S., 1990, Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing: 

Ecology, v. 71, no. 6, p. 2060–2068. 

Walters, C. J., Korman, J., Stevens, L.E.., and Gold, B., 2000, Ecosystem Modeling for Evaluation of 

Adaptive Management Policies in the Grand Canyon, Conservation Ecology 4(2): 1. [online] URL: 

http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art1/ 

Ward, D., and Persons, W. (in review), Little Colorado River Fish Monitoring, 2006 Annual Report, Draft 

Report Submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Ward, J. V. and Stanford, J. A., 1983, The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems, Pp. 29-42 in 

T.D. Fontaine and S.M. Bartell, eds. Dynamics of lotic ecosystems, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, 

MI. 

Weeden, H., Borden, F., Turner, B., Thompson, D., Strauss, C., and Johnson, R., 1975, Grand Canyon 

National Park campsite inventory, contract no. CX 001-3-0061 with the National Park Service: 

University Park, Pennsylvania State University. 

Weismiller, R.A., Kristof, S.J., Scholz, D.K., Anuta, P.E., and Momen, S.A., 1977, Change detection in 

coastal zone environments. Photobrametic Engineering and Remote Sensing, 43:1533-1539. 

Wiele, S. M., Wilcock, P. R., and Grams, P. E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a 

canyon river. Water Resources Research 43: 16. 

Wiesenborn, W. D. and Heydon, S. L., 2007, Diets of southwestern willow flycatchers in different 

habitats. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119(4): 547-577. 

Williams, B.K., Szaro, R.C., and Shapiro, C.D., 2007, Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide: Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 

Wohl, E., Bennett, J. P., Blum, M. D., Grant, G. E., Hanes, D. M., Howard, A. D., Mueller, D. S., 

Schoellhamer, D.H., and Simoes, F.J., 2006, Protocol Evaluation Program (PEP-SEDS III), Final report 

of the physical resources monitoring peer review panel, October 6, 2006, Proceedings of the external 

121 
122 

peer review workshop III on long-term monitoring of water and sediment resources of the Colorado 

River Ecosystem. Administrative Document, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 27 p. 

Wohl, E., Randle, T. J., Howard, A. D., Wilcock, P. R., Komar, P. D., Dietrich, W. E., Baker, V. R. 

Power, M. E., and Chavez, P. S., 1999, Protocol Evaluation Program (PEP-SEDS): final report of the 

physical resources monitoring peer review panel, November 1, 1999. Proceedings of the external peer 

review workshop II on long-term monitoring of water and sediment resources of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem, Administrative document, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 13 p. 

Wright, S. A., Anderson, C. R., and N. Voichick, N., 2008a, A simplified water temperature model for the 

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. River Research and Applications, DOI: 10.1002/rra.1179 

Wright, S. A., Melis, T. S., Topping, D. J., and Rubin, D. M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Pp. 17-31 in S.P 

Gloss, J.E. Lovich, and T.S. Melis, eds, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon, 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282. 

Wright, S. A., Schmidt, J. C., Melis, T. S., Topping, D. J., and Rubin, D. M., 2008b, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars, GSA Today, vol 18, no. 8, doi: 

10.1130/GSATG12A.1 

Yard, H., Van Riper, C. III, Brown, B. T., and Kearsley, M. J., 2004, Diets of insectivorous birds along 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Condor, v. 106, p. 106-115. 

Yoccoz, N. G., Nichols, J. D., and Boulinier, T., 2001, Monitoring of biological diversity in space and 

time, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:446-453. 
Appendix A: Core Monitoring Information Needs 

Table A-1. Original AMP goals and Core Monitoring Information Needs, as modified and ranked by the 2005 Scien(SPG) participants. Column 1 lists the ranked GCDAMP goals from 1 to 12. Column 3 provides the revised wordin

modified by the SPG, and Column 4 shows how SPG managers prioritized the revised CMINs within each goal. 

Revised CMIN wording 

GOAL or CMIN 

GOAL 2 Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove jeopardy from humpback chub and 

Rank 1 razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitat. 

CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance and distribution of hum

pback chub in the mainstem. 

Determine and track the 

parasite loads on hum

pback chub and other native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado 

River ecosystem. 

CMIN 2.3.1 CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of non-native 

predator

y fish s

pecies in the Colorado River. 

Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and s

peckled dace 

populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

CMIN 2.6.1 

GOAL 11 Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, present and futu

Rank 2 generations. 

CMIN 11.1.1 Determine the condition and integrit

y of 

prehistoric and historic sites in the Colorado River ecos

ystem through tracki

rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. 

CMIN 11.2.1 Determine the condition and integrit

y of TCPs in the Colorado River ecos

ystem. 

CMIN 11.2.2 Determine the condition of traditionall

y im

portant resources and locations using tribal 

pers

pectives and values. 

GOAL 7 Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the adaptive management program 

Rank 3 ecosystem goals. 

CMIN 7.4.2 Determine and track flow releases (gage data and SCADA data; time interval still TBD) from Glen Can

yon Dam, un

all operating conditions, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions. (parameters are upramp and downramp rates, volume, daily minimum and max) 

CMIN 7.1.1 Determine the water tem

perature d

ynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as appro

priate, tem

perature onl

y in mainstem 

and LCR), backwaters, and near-shore areas throughout the Colorado River ecosystem. 

CMIN 7.2.1 Determine the seasonal and 

yearl

y trends in turbidit

y, conductivit

y, DO, and 

pH, (decide below whether selenium is 

important) changes in the mainstem throughout the Colorado River ecosystem? 

CMIN 7.1.2 Determine and track LCR discharge and tem

perature near mouth (below s

prings). 

GOAL 1 Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations of desired species at higher 

Rank 4 trophic levels. 

CMIN 1.1.1 Determine and track the com

position and biomass of 

primar

y

producers below Glen Can

yon Dam in conjunction wit

measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime. 

CMIN 1.2.1 Determine and track the com

position and biomass of benthic invertebrates below Glen Can

yon Dam in conjunction w
measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Determine and track the composition and bio-mass of drift in the Colorado River in conjunction with measurements o

flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime. 

CMIN 1.5.1 

GOAL 6 Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities including threatened and endangered species a

Rank 5 their critical habitat. 

CMIN 6.1.1 Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community as measured at 5-ye

or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

CMIN 6.6.1 Determine and track the composition, abundance, and distribution of seep and spring communities as measured at 5-y

or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

CMIN 6.2.1 Determine and track the patch number, patch distribution, composition and area of the NHWZ, OHWZ, and sand bea

communities as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of chanfor the community. 

CMIN 6.5.1 Determine and track the distribution and abundance of non-native species in the Colorado River ecosystem as measu

at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

GOAL 8 Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve the 

Rank 6 adaptive management program ecosystem goals. 

CMIN 8.1.3 Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and silt/clay -input volumes and grain-size characteristics, by reach, as 

measured or estimated at the Paria and Little Colorado River stations, other major tributaries like Kanab and Havasu creeks, and “lesser” tributaries? 

CMIN 8.2.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes within and outside of eddie

between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

CMIN 8.1.2 What are the monthly sand and silt/clay –export volumes and grain-size characteristics, by reach, as measured at Lee

Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations? 

CMIN 8.1.1 Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume and grain-size changes within eddies below 

5,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

CMIN 8.6.1 Determine and track the change in coarse sediment abundance and distribution. 

GOAL 9 Maintain or improve the quality of recreation experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within th

Rank 7 framework of the adaptive management program ecosystem goals. 

CMIN 9.3.1 Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage level in Glen and Gran

Canyons. 

CMIN 9.1.1 Determine and track the changes attributable to dam operations in recreational quality, opportunities and use, impacts

serious incidents, and perceptions of users, including the level of satisfaction, in the Colorado River Ecosystem. 

CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of research and monitoring activity in Glen and Grand Canyons. CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of river-related use patterns. 

Determine and track accident rates for visitors participating in river-related activities including causes and location (t

is, on-river or off-river), equipment type, operator experience, and other factors of these accidents in the Colorado Ri

ecosystem. 

CMIN 9.2.2 

124 
125 

GOAL 5 

Rank 8 

Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab amber snail.

CMIN 5.1.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise in the lower zone (below 

100,000 cfs) and the upper zone (above 100,000 cfs). 

CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size and composition of the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise. 

GOAL 10 

Rank 9 

Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and advisable, within the framework of the adaptive management ecosystem goals. 

CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy produced through dam operations in relation to the various 

release scenarios(daily fluctuation limit, upramp and downramp limits, list components, maximum flow limit of 25,0cfs, minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs). 

GOAL 12 

Rank 10 

Maintain a high quality monitoring, research and adaptive management program.

GOAL 4 

Rank 11 

Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to be extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish. 

CMIN 4.1.1 Determine annual population estimates for age II+ rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual growth rate, standard condition (Kn), and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

GOAL 3 

Rank 12 

Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable
Appendix B: Description of the Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel 

(PEP) Review Process 

To acquire independent advice and critical input on proposed monitoring programs for each goal and 

associated resources, the GCMRC periodically convenes a Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) to review the 

proposed monitoring program. The PEP evaluates the results of the AMP information needs workshop, 

reviews results of pilot monitoring efforts and relevant research and development activities, and 

recommends future monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the monitoring project. 

The PEP external review panels are composed of subject experts derived from academia, independent 

research institutions, government agencies, or private consulting firms. GCMRC solicits potential 

reviewers from a national (and sometime international) pool of candidates and establishes a list of 

potential reviewers by discipline during the scoping phases of the project. Membership is determined 

competitively on the basis of expertise and on willingness and availability to participate within the 

scheduled time line of a given PEP. 

Following the selection of PEP members (3–6 persons per phase/program area), the panel is provided 

with copies of presentations/reports on assessments of existing data, results of field testing, and critical 

reviews of trial implementation projects. PEP members then participate in a multiday workshop and/or 

field expedition where they receive additional information about the work that has been conducted to 

date, have ample opportunity to review the field conditions and logistical constraints of each program, 

and can interact informally with the other panel members and previous monitoring project participants. 

The field trip/workshop is then followed by a 2–3 day panel retreat, where panel members work out their 

initial ideas and recommendations and formalize them in one or more reports to GCMRC. The panel 

selects a chair person who becomes the final spokesperson for the PEP and presents the results to 

GCMRC and the TWG at a later date. Panel members will often meet a second time or convene additional 

working meetings via conference calls before the PEP report is finalized 

A key component of each PEP report consists of recommendations to the GCMRC chief and the science 

advisors (a group of independent experts in various disciplines that also review the science program 

annually and may, to some degree, participate in some of the PEP reviews) on what changes in 

monitoring protocols are warranted. The results of each PEP evaluation are reviewed by the science 

advisors and then by the TWG, and comments are forwarded to the GCMRC chief for consideration 

before any new or modified monitoring procedures are implemented by program managers, typically 

through a competitive RFP-driven process. 

For any given resource/program area, there are likely to be at least two, and often three PEP reviews held 

throughout the development of each core monitoring project: (1) at the initial outset of developing the 

program, (2) following completion of initial R&D efforts, and/or (3) following completion of a pilot 

testing phase. 

In drafting the original prospectus for the PEP, the GCMRC identified the following issues to be 

important considerations in the design of future monitoring programs: 

1. Articulate Management Objectives/Information Needs, and Current Protocols 

It is critical to have a clear and detailed understanding of present stakeholder-derived management 

objectives and information needs. In addition to describing information needs and objectives, past and 

presently used monitoring protocols need to be clearly articulated on the basis of existing literature and 

discussions with present/former project chiefs and PIs who conducted monitoring and research during 

phases I and II of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES, 1983 through 1996), and 
subsequently. Information on existing protocols, including methods sections of reports and articles that 

describe various monitoring approaches used in the CRE or other rivers, must be reviewed and made 

available to external review panels and scoping workshop participants in advance of all PEP workshops 

or meetings. This information is collected, compiled and distributed by program managers during the 

scoping phase of the PEP. 

2. Define the Range of Optional Alternatives Under Existing Technologies 

Alternatives to existing protocols are identified by in-depth GCMRC scoping of monitoring techniques 

currently used in other long-term programs for river ecosystems. Methodologies used in monitoring of 

other ecosystems (that is, near coastal marine settings, forests, etc.) are also considered where the 

protocols might be adapted to a large river. 

The PEP scoping process is intended to be wide-ranging, and will glean information from multiple 

sources such as, reports, journal articles, professional presentations, and displays at professional meetings. 

Attending national meetings frequented by ecosystem-monitoring experts, and conferences that attract 

technological innovators by GCMRC staff is encouraged as a means of conducting pre-workshop scoping 

activities. To increase the effectiveness of the PEP, the limitations and capabilities of new technologies of 

interest must be screened against information needs by the GCMRC/PEP planning team in advance of the 

first workshop. New technologies that hold great promise, but are mismatched with stakeholder/GCMRC 

information needs should be identified and eliminated. This will hopefully eliminate consideration of 

inappropriate new protocols early in the process. In cases where innovation has led to new approached not 

recognized by stakeholders, the PEP can act to update managers on areas where new information could be 

easily obtained. Agencies and private-sector firms identified through the scoping process may be invited 

to the PEP workshop(s) for demonstration and discussions of new methods and technologies. 

Regardless of the diversity of monitoring approaches considered, other topics such as replication, 

sampling interval and spatial distribution for a long-term monitoring program also need to be evaluated. 

For instance, information from recent high-flow experiments suggests that monitoring data on grain-size 

evolution of channel-stored sediment may significantly influence management decision making, but 

tracking changes in grain-size had not previously been a component of physical-resource monitoring. 

3. Evaluation/Selection of Protocols to be Implemented 

The PEPs aim to identify which of the past, currently used, or new but untested protocols best meet the 

objectives of a long-term monitoring program. The program aims to design a river-monitoring program 

with protocols capable of assessing long-term ecosystem trends, as well as being able to document the 

impacts of discreet events, such as high-flows from GCD. Protocols must also be able to provide 

information to stakeholders in a timely manner useful for supporting the adaptive management process 

(recommendations to the Secretary of Interior). The selected protocols also must work within the unique 

settings of the CRE, be minimally intrusive to the environment, demonstrate cost effectiveness, stand as 

scientifically defendable, provide suitable accuracy/precision (depending on level of information need), 

and be highly repeatable and reproducible regardless of changes in contractors over time. Most 

importantly, the selected approaches must directly address the management objective-derived stakeholder 

information needs. 

Where existing data occur in the databases of the GCMRC or its former/present cooperators, initial 

evaluations will be undertaken internally by staff members and scientists already involved in monitoring 

under existing agreements. However, existing datasets that may foster comparative assessment will only 

be analyzed after the articulation and scoping steps have been accomplished. Any assessments conducted 

on existing data will be subjected to internal and external review and will be presented and discussed 

during initial workshop(s). 

127 
The PEP process also recognizes that new information gained from experiments, such as controlled high 

releases from GCD, as well as evolving information needs, will likely drive additional new needs for 

monitoring methods of the CRE through time. Therefore, although the PEP may have formal start and end 

dates, the GCMRC mission will require program managers, stakeholders and the science Advisors to 

revisit the long-term monitoring strategy (including individual protocols) on a periodic basis. GCMRC 

proposes that is occur as a 5-year review cycle 

128 
GLOSSARY 

AMP Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG Adaptive Management Work Group

ASMR Age-Structured Mark-Recapture 

AZGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department

CMINs Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CMP Core Monitoring Plan

CRE Colorado River ecosystem

CRMP Colorado River Management Plan

CSV Comma Separated Values 

DASA Data, Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis

DO Dissolved oxygen 

DOI Department of Interior

EINs Experimental Effects Information Needs

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FSP Fundamental Science Practice

GCD Glen Canyon Dam 

GCDAMP Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

GCES Glen Canyon Environmental Studies

GCM Grand Canyon Model

GCMP General Core Monitoring Plan

GCMRC Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

GCPA Grand Canyon Protection Act

GLCA Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

GRCA Grand Canyon National Park 

HFE high flow experiment

LCR Little Colorado River 

MRP Monitoring and Research Plan

MRPP Multi-response permutation procedure 

NAU Northern Arizona University

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMS Non-metric multi dimensional scaling 

NRC National Resources Council

PEP Protocol Evaluation Panel 

PIT Passive integrated transponders

QA/QC Data quality control and assurance

QW Quality-of-water 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

129 
130 

RINs Research Information Needs

ROD Record of Decision

SINs Synthesis Information Needs

SPG Science Planning Group

TEM Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring 

TWG Technical Work Group

UDF Universal Disk Format 

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey