U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Update on Core Monitoring PlanPrepared for the TWGFeb, 2005

History

Concept discussed - October 2003-March 2004Core Monitoring Ad Hoc formed by TWG - March 30, 2004Core Monitoring Team 1st meeting Flagstaff - April 9, 2004Position statement to AMWG and TWG - AprilCore Monitoring Team 2nd meeting, Phoenix - May 4, 2004Second update memo to AMWG and TWG – May, 2004

History (cont.)

Science Advisors review first draft - June, 2004GCMRC revises based on comments from SABSecond draft presented to AMWG/TWG - Aug, 2004Core Monitoring Team 3rd meeting – Sep, 2004GCMRC revises plan to address team commentsThird draft presented to AMWG – Oct, 2004 (on time)Comments and responses compiled – Jan, 2005CMT meeting to discuss process leading to revision and recommendation to AMWG – Feb, 2005

Process and assumptions established by the CMT April 9

Collaborative - This is a fully cooperative venture involving GCMRC, TWG ad hoc members, with review by SABDecision pointsMemos

Core monitoring

Core monitoring is consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific management questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, non-native control, etc.) affecting target resources. 

Resource categoriesA. Sediment B. Wildlife/VegetationC. FishD. Food baseE1. Cultural ResourcesTraditional cultural propertiesE2. Register eligible historic propertiesF. HydrologyG. Water QualityH. RecreationI. Threatened and endangered speciesJ. PowerK. EconomicsL. Non-native species

Relevant questionsWhat and why do managers and others need to know?Where do they want to know it?How frequently do they need to know?What are the general methods to obtain this information?What is the level of precision/accuracy neededHow will the monitoring data be presented and is it answering the managers questions (what are the metrics of success?

What did we get?

A plan that accomodated everyone’s issues of concernA projected budget of over $5.6 millionConcern that the TWG had inadequate time to comment on the plan

Format of plan changed in response to early comments

Current core monitoring capabilities

Future core monitoring programs (R&D)

Current capabilities

Lake PowellGCD releasesGCD power and revenueSurface water measurementsQWFisheries (LFT, HBC)

R&D elementsFine sediment (terrestrial)Coarse sediment (terrestrial)Terrestrial veg.KASSWFLRegister & non-register eligible HP’sRecreational resources (experience, campsites, economics)

QW (R&D): nutrients, major ions, C budgets, etc.Fine sedimentCoarse sedimentAquatic food webDownstream fishes in main stem (HBC aggregations, below Diamond Creek, etc.)

Written comments received during an extended comment period

NPSFWSGCWCCREDASABBOR

Comments received (cont.)

Comments compiledDraft responses provided to CMT

Green category

Lake Powell Quality of WaterDownstream Integrated Quality-of-WaterStreamflow & Suspended-Sediment TransportRainbow Trout in the Lees Ferry ReachHumpback Chub in the Little Colorado RiverAirborne Remote Sensing (Digital, OrthorectifiedImagery DBMS - Storing New Core-Monitoring Data Geographic Information System - Support Fieldwork & Overflights

Yellow category

Impacts of Coarse-Grained  Inputs Fine-Sediment Storage Terrestrial EcosystemT&E Wildlife - Kanab AmbersnailT&E Wildlife - Southwest Willow FlycatcherHigh Resolution LiDAR & Very High Resolution LIDAR for arch sites) 

Red category

Food Web (Research Toward Development of a Monitoring Plan) Downstream Fishes in the Main Channel Cultural Resources Monitoring -Archaeological Sites (TBD)Tribal Monitoring of TCPs and culturally important resources (TBD)Recreational Monitoring - visitor use & experiential attributes TBD)Recreational Monitoring - campsites (TBD)

Process

Evaluate green list against:- responses to written comments- AMWG priorities- MO’s- accuracy, precision, and desired future conditions- fiscal limitations

What’s next?

1. CMT meeting Mar 10-112. April 1 mailout of draft 4 to SAB3. April 10 review finished4. CMT meeting Apr 11-125. Revise draft 5 to mail to TWG May 36. Proposed TWG meeting week May 167. Final CMP proposal to AMWG June 18. Proposed AMWG meeting after July 1

- Update on Core Monitoring Plan
- History
- History (cont.)
- Process and assumptions established by the CMT April 9
- Core monitoring
- Resource categories
- Relevant questions
- What did we get?
- Format of plan changed in response to early comments
- Current capabilities
- R&D elements
- Written comments received during an extended comment period
- Comments received (cont.)
- Green category
- Yellow category
- Red category
- Process
- What’s next?