1 General Core Monitoring Plan for the Glen 

2 Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

3 Program 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 Prepared by 

11 

12 

13 U.S. Geological Survey 

14 Southwest Biological Science Center 

15 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

16 Flagstaff, Arizona 

17 

18 Draft prepared for Technical Work Group Review 

19 October 26, 2009 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 U.S. Department of the Interior 

31 U.S. Geological Survey 

32 
 ii

1 

2 

3 

4 
 iii

1 Contents (NEEDS TO BE UPDATED)

2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background .............................................................................................. 1 

3 1.1 Introduction: Resource Stewardship and Monitoring .............................................................. 1 

4 1.2 Purpose and Scope of the General Core Monitoring Plan ........................................................ 1 

5 1.3 Legislation, Statutes, Policy, and Strategic Planning ............................................................... 2 

6 1.4 Boundary and Definition of the Colorado River Ecosystem .................................................... 3 

7 1.5 History of Monitoring the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam ................... 4 

8 1.5.1 Pre-GCES Era (1921–82) ............................................................................................... 5 

9 1.5.2 Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Era (1982–96) ..................................................... 5 

10 1.5.3 GCMRC Era (1997–present) .......................................................................................... 9 

11 

12 Chapter 2. General Framework and Process for Development of Core monitoring Program .............. 17 

13 2.1 Ecosystem Setting .................................................................................................................... 17 

14 2.2 Monitoring within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Framework ........ 19 

15 2.3 Core Monitoring Information Needs and Indicators of Resource Condition ........................... 21 

16 2.4 Monitoring Relative to Modeling ............................................................................................. 21 

17 2.5 Integration of Monitoring Activities across Program Areas .................................................... 22 

18 2.6 Integration with Other Monitoring Programs in the Region .................................................... 23 

19 2.7 Process to Develop a Long-Term Core Monitoring Program .................................................. 25 

20 2.7.1 Annual Information Needs Workshop ............................................................................ 25 

21 2.7.2 Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel Reviews ............................................................... 25 

22 2.7.3 Core Monitoring Program Reports ................................................................................. 26 

23 2.8 Outline of the Process to Develop Specific Core Monitoring Program Elements ................... 27 

24 2.9 Ongoing Development and Improvement of Monitoring Program Elements .......................... 29 

25 2.10 Implementation Timelines...................................................................................................... 30 

26 

27 Chapter 3. Core Monitoring Proposals by GCDAMP Goal .................................................................. 31 

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

29 populations of desired species at higher trophic levels .................................................................. 40

30 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 40 

31 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 40 

32 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 40 

33 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 41

34 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 41 

35 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 41 

36 Goal 2: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

37 populations of desired species at higher trophic levels .................................................................. 43

38 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 43 

39 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 43 

40 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 44 

41 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 44

42 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 44 

43 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 45 

44 Goal 3: Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable ................................ 50 

45 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 50 

46 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 50 

47 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 50 

48 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 50

49 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 50 

50 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 50 

51 Goal 4: Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria 

Formatted: Highlight
 iv

1 River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of 

2 viable populations of native fish .................................................................................................... 53 

3 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 53 

4 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 53 

5 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 53 

6 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 54

7 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 54 

8 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 54 

9 Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail .............................................. 56 

10 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 56 

11 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 56 

12 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 56 

13 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 56

14 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 57 

15 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 57 

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

17 threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat ......................................................... 59 

18 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 59 

19 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 59 

20 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 60 

21 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 60

22 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 60 

23 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 61 

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

25 GCDAMP ecosystem goals ............................................................................................................ 64 

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

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

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

29 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 65

30 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 66 

31 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 67 

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

33 shorelines to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals ................................................................... 69 

34 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 69 

35 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 69 

36 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 69 

37 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 69

38 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 70 

39 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 70 

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

41 Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystem goals .................. 73 

42 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 73 

43 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 73 

44 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 73 

45 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 74

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

47 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 77 

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

49 feasible and advisable, within the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystem goals ......................... 79 

50 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 79 

51 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 79 
 v

1 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 79

2 Summary of Previous Work .................................................................................................... 79 

3 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 81 

4 Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and 

5 benefit of past, present, and future generations .............................................................................. 82 

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

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

8 Links to Other Program Elements ........................................................................................... 83 

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

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

11 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 85 

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

13 (coordinated systemwide remote-sensing activities) ...................................................................... 86 

14 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................. 86 

15 Parameters/Indicators to Be Monitored, Monitoring Signals, and Reporting Variables ......... 86 

16 Links to Resources .................................................................................................................. 87 

17 Core Monitoring Information Needs ....................................................................................... 87

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

19 Summary of Monitoring Project .............................................................................................. 89 

20 

21 Chapter 4. Data Management, Quality Assurance, and Reporting ....................................................... 91 

22 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 91 

23 4.2 Data Management Overview – Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................... 91 

24 4.3 Data Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................ 93 

25 4.4 Planning ................................................................................................................................... 94 

26 4.5 Electronic Data Repository ...................................................................................................... 95 

27 4.6 Analysis and Modeling ............................................................................................................ 98 

28 4.7 Reporting of Core Monitoring Data, Annual Assessments & Synthesis .................................. 98 

29 

30 Chapter 5. Management Strategy, Staffing and Budget to Support Core Monitoring .......................... 101 

31 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 101 

32 Program Management and Role of Cooperators ............................................................................ 101 

33 GCMRC Staffing Requirements .................................................................................................... 102 

34 Information Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 103 

35 Logistics and Permitting ................................................................................................................ 103 

36 Core Monitoring Program Costs .................................................................................................... 104 

37 

38 References ............................................................................................................................................. 106 

39 Appendix A: Core Monitoring Information Needs ............................................................................... 121 

40 Appendix B: Description of the Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel Review Process ....................... 133 

41 Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 136 

42 

43 
 vi

1 List of Figures

2 

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

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

5 

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

7 

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

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

10 

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

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

13 

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

15 

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

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

18 

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

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

21 

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

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

24 

25 Figure 9. A conceptual model of river recreation to guide monitoring ............................................ 75 

26 

27 Figure 10. Data management roles and responsibilities overview ................................................... 92

28 

29 Figure 11. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

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

31 

32 List of Tables

33 

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

35 

36 Table 2. Programmatic Approach used by GCMRC to guide development and 

37 implementation of the Core Monitoring Program for the GCDAMP ............................................... 28

38 

39 Table 3. Proposed schedule for core monitoring program development .......................................... 31

40 

41 Table 4. Summary of proposed focus, scope, and parameters for core monitoring ......................... 35

42 

43 Table 5. Metrics and frequency of data collection for power costs .................................................. 80

44 

45 Table 6. Summary breakdown of annual estimated costs (direct and indirect) for 

46 each core monitoring project............................................................................................................. 105

47 

48 Table A-1. Original AMP goals and Core Monitoring Information Needs, as modified 

49 and ranked by the 2005 Science Planning Group participants .......................................................... 121
1 Chapter 1. Introduction and Development HistoryBackground

2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 

10 Consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure 

11 status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring is implemented 

12 on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for example, water year, 

13 experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting 

14 target resources.

15 

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

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

18 explicit methodologies for each resource category will be developed within an adaptive management 

19 framework, as outlined in this plan, over the next several years. The proposed process is consistent with 

20 the strategies and objectives described in the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s (GCMRC) 

21 Monitoring and Research Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007), and the GCDAMP Strategic Plan as 

22 amended by the Adaptive Management Work Group at their August 2003 meeting (AMWG written 

23 commun., 2003, hereafter cited as GCDAMP, 2003).

24 

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

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

27 (Williams and others, 2007) identifies four primary purposes for monitoring data in an adaptive 

28 management program:

29 1. To evaluate progress towards achieving management objectives

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

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

32 observations

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

34 4.

35 

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

37 in the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act for the

38 

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

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

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

42 created.

43 

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

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

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

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

Formatted: Font: Univers-CondensedBold,

Bold, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: List Number 2, Numbered + Level:

1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 18 pt + Tab

after: 36 pt + Indent at: 36 pt
 8

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

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

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

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

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

6 1.1 Introduction: Resource Stewardship and Monitoring

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

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

9 (Williams and others, 2007) identifies four primary purposes for monitoring data in an adaptive 

10 management program:

11 5. To evaluate progress towards achieving management objectives

12 6. To determine resource status in order to identify appropriate management actions

13 7. To increase understanding of resource dynamics via the comparison of predictions 

14 against field observations

15 8. To enhance and develop models of resource dynamics as needed

16 

17 This document describes a general plan and framework for a core monitoring program for the Glen 

18 Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) during federal fiscal years 2010 through 2015.

19 Detailed core monitoring plans with explicit methodologies for each resource category will be developed 

20 as outlined in this plan over the next several years. The proposed process is consistent with the strategies 

21 and objectives described in the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s (GCMRC) Monitoring 

22 and Research Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007), and the GCDAMP Strategic Plan as amended by the 

23 Adaptive Management Work Group at their August 2003 meeting (AMWG written commun., 2003, 

24 hereafter cited as GCDAMP, 2003).

25 1.12 Purpose and Scope of the General Core Monitoring Plan 

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

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

28 information that is currently available. As described in the MRP, the four steps are to (1) develop a 

29 general core monitoring proposal, (2) conduct annual information needs workshops with the Technical 

30 Work Group (TWG) in advance of convening independent protocol evaluation panel (PEP) reviews, (3) 

31 conduct PEPs for each resource goal, and (4) prepare final core monitoring program reports for each 

32 resource goal. 

33 

34 This General Core Monitoring Plan (GCMP) is the first in this four-step process of implementing the 

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

36 schedule, and funding level for each proposed core monitoring project. The GCMP is based on Adaptive 

37 Management Work Group (AMWG) priorities, currently identified information needs, the feasibility of 

38 developing monitoring protocols to meet those needs in the foreseeable future, and an adaptive 

39 management approach incorporating risk assessment and trade-off analyses to support decision making. 

40 other relevant information. Development and implementation of the core monitoring program for the 

41 GCDAMP could potentially consume a large percentage of the GCDAMP science budget based on the 

42 information needs identified by the GCDAMP. The; the GCMP identifies the science strategy and 

43 adaptive management strategy which will be used to develop individual core monitoring plans. The 

44 GCMPgeneral technical framework for the program and includes initial estimates for costs and 

45 timeframes for program implementation but recognizes that an adaptive management approach is 

Formatted: Body Text, No bullets or

numbering

Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt, No bullets or

numbering

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 12 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Body Text, No bullets or

numbering

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Font: Univers-CondensedBold, 11

pt, Bold
 9

1 necessary to complete the individual core monitoring plans and that this process must be iterative. The 

2 TWG and AMWG have expressed concerns about the overall budget cost of core monitoring and this 

3 process will allow the flexibility for the managers to define the total cost based on current and expected 

4 monitoring needs.. This information is intended to support long-term budget planning for the GCDAMP 

5 and participating agencies.

6 1.23 Legislation, Statutes, Policy, and Strategic Planning 

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

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

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

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

11 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 program includes necessary research supported by monitoring to determine the effects of dam 

21 management on the natural, recreational, and cultural resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. 

22 

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

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

25 Committee Act group comprising representatives of the seven Colorado River basin states (Arizona, 

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

27 Hualapai, Navajo, Kaibab Southern Paiutes, Southern Piute Tribes of Utah, and Zuni), two power user 

28 groups, two environmental groups, two recreation groups, and five federal agencies (Bureau of 

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

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

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

32 

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

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

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

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

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

38 in achieving the intent of the GCPA. 

39 

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

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

42 been on the development of a “core” monitoring program, which is defined in the GCDAMP Strategic 

43 Plan (GCDAMP, 2003) as follows: 

44 

45 Consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure 

46 status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring is implemented 

47 on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for example, water year, 
 10

1 experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting 

2 target resources.

3 

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

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

6 operations. This general mandate has been further refined by the GCDAMP to include 11 resource goals 

7 and 1 programmatic goal (table 1), as outlined in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan (GCDAMP, 2003). 

8 

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

10 

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 

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. 

11 

12 

13 This general core monitoring plan assumes that the “core” monitoring program is being designed to 

14 measure the status and trends of resources associated with the GCDAMP goals. However, monitoring is 

15 also necessary to ensure compliance with other environmental statutes, including the Endangered Species 

16 Act (ESA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Therefore, the GCDAMP core monitoring 

17 program is intended to meet the requirements of the GCPA while also supporting the requirements for 

18 monitoring to meet other relevant environmental compliance mandates associated with federally listed 

19 endangered species (that is, the humpback chub and the Kanab ambersnail) and federally managed and 

20 register-eligible historic properties that occur within the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE). 
 11

1 1.34 Boundary and Definition of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 Figure 1. A map of the Colorado River ecosystem from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to 

32 upper Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

33 1.45 History of Monitoring the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen 

Canyon Dam1 34 

35 

36 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.”

Geographic Scope

Formatted: Heading 2
 12

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

2 Grand Canyon.

3 

4 1.45.1 Pre-GCES Era (1921–82) 

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

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

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

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

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

10 87, respectively) from the 1920s until the fall of 1972, when the daily suspended sediment sampling was 

11 discontinued. 

12 

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

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

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

16 river corridor from 1973 to 1977; this was the first comprehensive inventory of the river ecosystem. A 

17 primary component of this work initially was to inventory all campsites in the river corridor and assess 

18 their condition (Weeden and others, 1975). Through this initial inventory work and subsequent research 

19 efforts, numerous environmental issues that are recognized as problems today were identified, and 

20 groundwork for much of the subsequent river corridor science was established. 

21 

22 Issues identified by the Carothers and Aitcheson (1976) report included (1) identification of the 

23 significance of dam impacts on the riparian corridor (see also Turner and Karpiscak’s [1980] photo24 rematching efforts), (2) human waste management (Carothers and others, 1979, “Let’s Pack It All Out”), 

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

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

27 1976; Ruffner and others, 1978; Sutkus and others, 1978; Carothers and others, 1979; Brown and others, 

28 1987; Phillips and others, 1987), (6) endangerment of native fish, and (7) Pogonomyrmex ant infestation 

29 and sand discoloration of beaches in the absence of flooding. As the final phase of the inventory project, 

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

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

32 pursued. 

33 

34 The initiation of fish monitoring arose from the original recognition by Miller (1946) of the endangered 

35 status of Colorado River fish, several of which were federally protected before the Endangered Species 

36 Act of 1973 was passed. The work of Carothers and Minckley (1981) set the stage for monitoring 

37 humpback chub spawning, which has been further refined and continues to the present. The recreational 

38 research of Shelby (1976) and his colleagues demonstrated significant impacts of boat types and 

39 crowding on visitor experience, laying the groundwork for subsequent National Park Service recreational 

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

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

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

43 problems (see 2 and 4, above).

44 Formatted: Body Text
 13

1 1.45.2 Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Era (1982–96)

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

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

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

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

6 beyond the scope of National Park Service jurisdiction. 

7 

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

9 Impact for rewinding Glen Canyon Dam’s hydroelectric turbines and increasing diurnal flow fluctuations. 

10 In response to that public concern, then Secretary of the Interior James Watt initiated the 1982–97 Glen 

11 Canyon Environmental Studies program (GCES). Phase I of the GCES (1983–87) produced more than 40 

12 research studies, and Phase II resulted in nearly 100 studies. These research efforts identified virtually all 

13 of the contemporary issues related to river and dam management (Stevens and Gold, 2003). 

14 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 National Academy of Sciences Monitoring Symposium (1992) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44 

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

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

47 EIS. Duncan Patten (GCES senior scientist) cited several challenges to developing a monitoring program 
 14

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

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

3 GCES Era Monitoring Efforts 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 1997; Brown and others, 1989, 1994, 1998; Stevens and others, 1995, 1997a, 1997c; Sublette and 

20 others, 1998). 

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

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

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

24 1997c), along with dramatic downstream variation in aquatic productivity associated with the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 measurements. 

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

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

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

36 interpretation (Schmidt and others, 2004). 

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

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

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

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

41 because the GCDAMP leadership has determined that only field work geographically constrained 

42 to Grand Canyon will be recommended for funding. 

43 

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

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

46 places limits on the amount of learning that can be gained from comparison to controls. For example, 
 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 program directions in Grand Canyon. 

8 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 used in recent years, and Stevens and colleagues developed a census technique for monitoring waterbirds 

29 throughout the river corridor (Stevens and others, 1997a). The authors compiled waterbird information 

30 from pre-dam river runner diaries, and drew together 21 years of post-dam waterbird observation data that 

31 provided detailed insights into the positive impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on waterbird diversity and 

32 distribution; however, key questions about habitat use and visitor impacts on waterbird movement remain 

33 unanswered. 

34 

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

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

37 and those techniques have been used by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to monitor snails at 

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

39 

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

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

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

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

44 

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

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

47 1980s and early1990s. In 1993, the National Park Service implemented a monitoring program for 

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

49 

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

51 Native American involvement in the preparation of the Glen Canyon Dam EIS in the early 1990s. 
 16

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

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

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

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

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

6 for Cultural Resources. 

7 

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

9 (1984), Kearsley and Warren (1993), and Kearsley and Quartaroli (1997). Some aspects of recreational 

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

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

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

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

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

15 

16 1.45.3 GCMRC Era (1997–present)

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 

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

32 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41 implementation. 

42 

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

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

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

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

Formatted: Body Text

Formatted: Line spacing: Double, Don't adjust

space between Latin and Asian text
 17

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

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

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

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

5 

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

7 (remote sensing initiative, terrestrial, physical and modeling, etc.) and continues to the present (2009) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 fisheries (native and nonnative) PEP was completed in May 2009. Monitoring protocols in the areas of 

15 cultural and aquatic food web resources are currently the focus of research initiatives ongoing since 2005, 

16 while a PEP review for economics has yet to be convened.

17 Development of Conceptual Ecosystem Model to Enhance Monitoring 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 

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

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

28 for the conceptual modeling exercise: 

29 

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

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

32 stakeholder and scientist interactions). 

33 

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

35 developing realistic simulations. 

36 

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

38 knowledge gaps in the program related to management needs. 

39 

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

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

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

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

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

45 sociocultural resource areas (Walters and others, 2000). 

46 

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

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

49 response of native fishes to warmer water conditions through implementation of a proposed temperature 
 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 serve as reliable tools to inform policy decisions. 

8 

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

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

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

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

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

14 1990). Simultaneously, the modeling project helped identify additional monitoring data that would be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 options for GCD. 

23 Development of a Long-Term Core Monitoring Plan 

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

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

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

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

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

29 development of existing monitoring programs that involved the establishment of protocol evaluation 

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

31 of analysis, synthesis, and revaluation, culminating in the implementation of long-term monitoring 

32 protocols. This process, which requires 4–5 years of research and development (R&D) for each key 

33 resource, got underway in 1998, starting with the physical science program, and is still in progress for 

34 some elements of the program (for example, terrestrial ecosystems, archaeological and tribal resources, 

35 aquatic food base, recreation, and socioeconomics). 

36 

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

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

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

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

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

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

43 program goals. The goal of this plan is to outline a scientific process to support GCDAMP decision44 making to overcome these obstacles.

45 

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

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

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

49 in-depth knowledge assessment workshop in July 2005. The Adaptive Management Program stakeholders 
 19

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

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

3 planning effort, led by GCMRC in collaboration with the Core Monitoring Team, an ad hoc group of the 

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

5 ad hoc committee known as the Science Planning Group, that tried to develop a long-term experimental 

6 plan. Each of these planning efforts fell short of their intended objectives, but they both made substantial 

7 contributions towards refining the scope and direction of a future monitoring plan, as described below. 

8 

9 Initial Attempts at Developing a Core Monitoring Plan, 2004–06: In March 2004, a core monitoring 

10 ad hoc committee composed of members of the GCD Technical Work Group and staff of the GCMRC 

11 was convened by a decision of the AMWG. This group of individuals, referred to as the Core Monitoring 

12 Team (CMT), represented a cross-section of many GCDAMP resource management concerns and 

13 scientific disciplines. It was envisioned by AMWG that the CMP would be developed collaboratively by 

14 this team. GCMRC would retain primary authorship of the CMP, while other members of the AMP would 

15 contribute sections. The CMT was chaired by Jeff Lovich, then chief of the GCMRC. The CMT met 

16 formally five times between April 2004 and April 2005, and there was one conference call among a CMT 

17 ad-hoc subgroup on March 23, 2005. 

18 

19 One outcome of the April 9, 2004 meeting was a position statement articulating decisions, roles and 

20 responsibilities, definitions, and basic principles the group endorsed related to the process for how the 

21 CMP would be developed. The CMT reviewed and adopted the definition of core monitoring proposed in 

22 the AMP Strategic Plan: 

23 

24 Consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to 

25 measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring 

26 is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for 

27 example, water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, 

28 nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources.

29 

30 Although there was clear recognition and acceptance that emphasis was to be placed on key resources and 

31 specific questions, CMT members eventually identified most resource categories evaluated in the EIS as 

32 being necessary components of the plan. A popular metaphor subsequently identified the plan as a 

33 “Christmas tree” on which everyone wanted to hang their favorite “ornaments.” 

34 

35 On April 9, 2004, the CMT met and produced a position statement on core monitoring. The statement 

36 outlined a number of assumptions and resources to study. The CMT identified 10 assumptions that would 

37 need to be embraced in the development of the GCMP:

38 1. Use available technology, as appropriate,

39 2. Adopt a minimalist framework (e.g., no ornaments on the Christmas tree),

40 3. Meet the needs of stakeholders and answer their specific management questions,

41 4. Strive for automated techniques that are less invasive and more efficient,

42 5. The budget needs to support the plan (e.g., 40-60% of our budget for core),

43 6. Build for consistency,

44 7. Build for longevity,

45 8. Incorporate flexibility to adopt new technologies,

46 9. The plan will be reviewed and accepted by SAB/TWG/AMWG/GCMRC staff, and

47 10. The results of monitoring will be regularly reported.

48 

49 On May 4, 2004, the CMT was assembled again in an attempt to reduce the scope (that is, reduce the 

50 number of “ornaments”) of the CMP. Although the team strived for a minimalist strategy (i.e., no 

51 ornaments), Tthis goal went largely unrealized. The CMT decided that the following resource categories 

Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level:

1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 18 pt + Indent

at: 36 pt

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
 20

1 of concern would be covered in the CMP: (1) sediment; (2) wildlife/vegetation; (3) fish; (4) food base; (5) 

2 register eligible historic properties; (6) other cultural resources of tribal concern; (7) hydrology; (8) water 

3 quality; (9) recreation; (10) threatened and endangered species; (11) power; and (12) non-native species.

4 The CMT affirmed the importance of relating monitoring activities to the questions arising out of the 

5 AMP strategic plan. Relevant fundamental questions included the following: (1) What and why do 

6 managers need to know? (2) Where do they want to know it? (3) How frequently do they need to know? 

7 (4) What are the general methods to obtain this information? (5) What is the level of precision/accuracy 

8 needed? (6) How will the monitoring data be presented? (7) Is it answering the managers’ questions?, 

9 and (8) What are the metrics of success, and how is success defined?

10 

11 The general consensus of those present was that the GCMRC had been given sufficient information to 

12 begin working on the plan, and GCMRC was instructed to do so without further delay. GCMRC 

13 interpreted this outcome as clear direction to move forward in developing a “Christmas tree” plan, with 

14 the ornaments. A draft plan was prepared and delivered to the Science Advisors on June 9, 2004, and the 

15 science advisor comments and a draft core monitoring plan were delivered to the CMT on September 9, 

16 2004. 

17 

18 The first draft of the CMP presented monitoring activities as a comprehensive list of 18 projects grouped 

19 by resource area. The list was comprehensive in that it contained both monitoring activities for which 

20 acceptable methodology currently existed, and monitoring activities for which the specific methodology 

21 was still under development or needed further refinement in order to provide the needed data. 

22 

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

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

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

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

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

28 evaluated by a PEP and implemented for one to several years using methods deemed adequate for long29 term monitoring. Yellow referred to projects that had undergone a PEP review and were scheduled for 

30 completion and external peer review in the near future (FY05 or FY06). Red referred to projects that were 

31 still under development and needed a PEP evaluation in FY 2005 and beyond. 

32 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 Objectives, Information Needs, and compliance mandates, and also with respect to the issues of data 

41 quality, accessibility, and analysis. 

42 

43 To help identify and document the potential shortcomings of projects included in the draft CMP, a list of 

44 criteria was developed that collectively addressed the concerns of CMT members for evaluating each 

45 project. An ad-hoc subcommittee was formed to develop a more refined process for addressing the 

46 evaluation criteria and to transmit that information to the CMT. Initially, at the March 10–11, 2005, 

47 meeting, the CMT developed seven criteria with which to evaluate how well each “green” project met an 

48 existing AMP goal. Evaluation criteria were compiled from CMT discussions, flip charts, and notes from 

49 individuals in attendance at the meeting. These seven criteria assumed that scientific methodology exists 

50 to accomplish all or part of the monitoring activity. Whether or not acceptable methodology exists was 

51 later added as criterion 8. 
 21

1 

2 On March 23, 2005, a conference call was held among the CMT subcommittee members and an outline of 

3 the process was developed. It was decided that a complete revision of the current CMP was impractical 

4 within the timeframes allowed in the current development schedule and that a provisional plan would 

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

6 projects,” was sent to the science advisors for review on April 5, 2005, and was distributed to the CMT on 

7 April 9, 2005. This fourth draft was discussed at the April 11–12, 2005, CMT meeting, where some CMT 

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

9 content. General criticisms included the following: 

10 

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

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

13 over time. 

14 3. The plan did not provide an ecosystem perspective. 

15 4. The plan was not integrated between scientific disciplines. 

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

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

18 different plan. 

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

20 

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

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

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

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

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

26 3 and 12. In addition it was recognized that an essential component of the plan was still missing—an 

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

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

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

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

31 additional discussion among TWG members. 

32 

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

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

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

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

37 and which ones would receive less funding or none at all. The CMT also decided that some additional 

38 criteria needed to be added, such as relative importance of a given resource for ecosystem function. 

39 

40 Once the CMT recognized that they needed to undertake an entirely new process for evaluating proposed 

41 monitoring activities, the group decided that GCMRC should complete a provisional plan for FY06 

42 quickly and with minimal additional effort so that the team could focus their full attention on developing 

43 an entirely new, AMP goal-oriented core monitoring plan. The resulting FY06 Provisional Core 

44 Monitoring Plan only included projects that had undergone one or more PEP evaluations, had been 

45 piloted and results peer-reviewed, and had been implemented for one to several years using methods 

46 deemed adequate for long-term monitoring. Projects in this category included (1) Lake Powell quality of 

47 water, (2) downstream surface water (discharge and stage measurements), (3) downstream quality of 

48 water for a limited suite of parameters, such as temperature, specific conductivity, and suspended 

49 sediment, (4) status of Lees Ferry rainbow trout, and (5) status of humpback chub in the Little Colorado 

50 River (LCR). These “green” projects constituted the core elements of the FY06 provisional draft plan. 

51 
 22

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

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

3 workshop in August 2004 to prioritize their information needs for the research and monitoring program. 

4 Unfortunately, the workshop ended up focusing on prioritizing a set of questions that had been randomly 

5 generated by individual stakeholders, rather than focusing specifically on prioritizing information needs; 

6 nevertheless it helped to define the main resource concerns that the majority of stakeholders felt 

7 warranted greater emphasis in future research and monitoring programs. 

8 

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

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

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

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

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

14 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 

16 approaches also helped to achieve other important tribal objectives such as connecting youth with elders’ 

17 traditional knowledge and strengthening their cultural connection with Grand Canyon. The workshop led 

18 to the development of several short “position” papers, which were later presented to the AMWG and 

19 discussed in some detail at subsequent TWG meetings. One outcome of these subsequent discussions was 

20 that the tribes received additional funding to pursue their independent monitoring projects as compliance 

21 activities funded by Reclamation, rather than as science activities funded through the GCMRC. 

22 

23 Knowledge Assessment Workshop (KAW), summer 2005: Concurrent with the initiation of the 

24 Science Planning Group, GCMRC convened a group of stakeholders and subject experts to review the 

25 state of current knowledge for each of the key resource categories identified in the AMP strategic plan. 

26 This assessment was intended to document knowledge about the various experimental treatments that had 

27 been conducted since operations were first altered in 1991. Specific objectives of the knowledge 

28 assessment were to (1) evaluate the uncertainties that persist regarding individual resource attribute 

29 responses of the Colorado River ecosystem to the various management actions (both flow and nonflow 

30 elements) undertaken as experiments over the last two decades, (2) develop strategic science questions 

31 that would need to be addressed to further reduce the uncertainties associated with the various flow and 

32 nonflow treatments, and (3) identify research and monitoring strategies that might need to be undertaken 

33 to answer the science questions identified. 

34 

35 The 2005 knowledge assessment was conducted within two workshops (May and July 2005), both of 

36 which promoted information transfer between scientists, as well as focused discussions between scientists 

37 and managers about past research and monitoring relative to various treatments. This exercise resulted in 

38 a categorization of the state of existing knowledge into three broad categories: (1) existing knowledge 

39 about a given resource was sufficient to determine both general trends and to quantify the rate and amount 

40 of change, (2) knowledge was sufficient to determine general trends, but not to quantify rate or amount of 

41 change, and (3) knowledge was not sufficient to reliably determine even general trends in 

42 condition/status. The KAW highlighted crucial gaps in existing monitoring and research programs, 

43 prompting further analysis and consideration of how to fill those knowledge gaps through future 

44 monitoring and research efforts. 

45 

46 Science Planning Group Activities, 2005–06: Termination of the Core Monitoring Team approach to 

47 developing a core monitoring plan coincided with the initiation of the Science Planning Group (SPG) in 

48 summer 2005. The primary purpose of the SPG was to develop a long-term experimental plan, but in the 

49 course of this effort, several activities were undertaken that helped to further the aims of core monitoring 

50 plan development. Specifically, the SPG revisited, refined, and prioritized the resource goals and core 
 23

1 monitoring information needs for the program. The results of this prioritization exercise, reflected in 

2 Appendix A, have been used to guide the development of this current plan. 

3 

4 The SPG also recognized the need for the GCDAMP to more explicitly define the goals of the AMP and 

5 the desired future conditions of resources that the program seeks to maintain or enhance. The SPG did not 

6 succeed in defining desired future conditions for key resources, but it did help to shine a light on this key 

7 deficiency in the program—a deficiency that continues to hinder our ability to determine whether or not 

8 the GCDAMP is achieving its stated goals. 

9 

10 Development of a Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan, 2006–07: In the winter 

11 of 2005–06, with the arrival of a new GCMRC chief (the fifth in as many years), GCMRC decided to 

12 reassess the process being used to develop a core monitoring plan and approach it in a more logical, step13 down fashion. Specifically, GCMRC decided to develop a series of strategic planning documents, starting 

14 first with a 5-year strategic science plan that explicitly addressed the priority management questions 

15 identified in the August 2004 AMWG workshop and the strategic science questions that had emerged 

16 from the 2005 KAW. This was followed by development of a 5-year Monitoring and Research Plan 

17 (MRP) that laid out a year-by-year approach for systematically tackling the knowledge gaps and research 

18 questions identified in the KAW. 

19 

20 The MRP also laid out a four-step process for developing scientifically robust, peer-reviewed monitoring 

21 protocols to address each of the resource goals identified in the 2003 AMP Strategic Plan. The first step 

22 involved the development of the General Core Monitoring Plan to provide a comprehensive overview of 

23 the information needs, proposed projects, and estimated budget requirements to comprehensively assess 

24 the status and trends in resource conditions, as proposed in the original AMP strategic plan. This 

25 document is that general plan, and it completes the first step in the four-step process. 

26 
 24

1 Chapter 2. GCDAMP General Framework and Process for 

2 Development of the Core Monitoring ProgramMonitoring 

3 Needs

4 

5 2.1 Ecosystem Setting

6 Resources in and along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon have experienced profound changes as a 

7 result of the installation and operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD). Installation of a dam far from the 

8 river headwaters alters the river’s physical and biological characteristics (Araújo and others, 2009; Rehn, 

9 2009). In some cases the river may return to a more natural state with increasing distance from the dam 

10 (the serial discontinuity concept; see Stanford and Ward, 2001, and references therein), however it is 

11 highly unlikely that the Colorado River can be restored to an entirely natural, pre-dam condition (Stevens 

12 and Gold, 2003). The operation of GCD makes the physical and biological components of the Colorado 

13 River below the dam distinct from less regulated analogs in the region (Stevens and others, 1997a), 

14 increasing the need to study and monitor the system in order to make informed decisions. The 

15 maintenance or improvement of natural resources in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon requires 

16 recognition that (1) profound physical and biological changes have occurred, and (2) maintenance and 

17 restoration activities are constrained within this altered ecosystem. For example, the sediment resources 

18 of the current system are limited and will require careful management if goals dependent on sediment 

19 conservation are to be achieved (Wright and others, 2008b). 

20 

21 Because the interactions among physical and biological ecosystem elements (Ricklefs, 1993) often lead to 

22 state changes that are unpredictable from studying the elements in isolation (Odum, 1977; Townsend and 

23 others, 2008), it is important for GCMRC to pursue monitoring in an ecosystem context. Ecosystem 

24 monitoring is most effectively pursued by teams of researchers from different backgrounds that are 

25 focused on developing a better understanding of the ecosystem as a whole (Odum, 1977); together with 

26 numerous cooperators, GCMRC provides the diverse multidisciplinary research team needed to study and 

27 improve our understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem.

28 

29 2.1 Monitoring within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

30 Framework

31 

32 The GCDAMP has identified 12 diverse guidance goals for activities involving ecosystem components 

33 that interact at various trophic levels. No single conceptual approach can capture all of the potential 

34 interrelationships among ecosystem elements; this difficulty is compounded by the diversity of the 

35 GCDAMP goals and the need to present research and monitoring results to stakeholders with widely 

36 varying interests. In an effort to present the different goals in as straightforward a manner as possible, 

37 while also relying on accepted scientific literature definitions, GCMRC distinguishes among the 12 

38 GCDAMP goals by categorizing them as either resources or ecosystem drivers/stressors (Vinebrooke and 

39 others, 2004; Lamon and Qian, 2008; Townsend and others, 2008), which may produce either positive or 

40 negative influences on resources (Chapin and others, 1996). For GCMRC to provide meaningful 

41 information and recommendations to GCDAMP stakeholders and managers, it is critical to describe how 

42 the CRE elements enumerated in the goals are interrelated. 

43 

44 It is practical, and consistent with an ecosystem approach, to consider the goals in a hierarchy (fig. 2), 

45 envisioned as an inverted pyramid populated with some of the relatively higher trophic level resources at 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 pt
 25

1 the top, deriving energy, nutrients and/or habitats from lower trophic levels farther down the pyramid. 

2 The goals that are highest in the trophic web are those relating to humans and their cultural values—the 

3 goals that seek to protect resources reflecting basic human needs and habitat requirements (goals 9, 10, 

4 and 11) or that seek to protect specific species that Euro-American and traditional Native American 

5 cultures have deemed to be exceptionally valuable (goals 2, 3, 4, 5, and specific components of goal 6). 

6 Laws and policies (for example, the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Grand 

7 Canyon Protection Act) reinforce cultural values attributed to specific elements of the ecosystem, 

8 especially cultural resources (goal 11) and endangered native species (goals 2, 3, and 5). Supporting these 

9 higher levels in the hierarchy are the biological and physical drivers or stressors of the ecosystem such as 

10 the terrestrial and aquatic food web (goals 1 and 6), sediment (goal 8), and the water resource (goal 7) that 

11 may or may not provide adequate nutrition and habitat for supporting other elements of the ecosystem. 

12 Maintaining an active, effective adaptive management program and the data associated with monitoring 

13 and research (goal 12) supports all of the goals from the apex of the inverted pyramid. This hierarchy 

14 views Grand Canyon from a “bottom-up” perspective largely because the ecosystem is strongly 

15 influenced by the river, its hydrology (including variable and changing climate), and its canyon-bound 

16 geomorphological setting (Stevens and Gold, 2003). 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 Figure 2. GCDAMP Goals in a conceptual ecosystem hierarchy 

22 

23 

24 For GCMRC to provide meaningful information to GCDAMP stakeholders and managers, it is critical to 

25 describe not only the status and trends of the CRE elements enumerated in the goals, but also how 

26 ecosystem drivers or stressors impact those resource status and trends. Only rarely will a single driver or 

27 stressor act on a single resource (Townsend and others, 2008). It is thus necessary to monitor both 

28 resources and stressors. Research is needed to clarify how monitoring information supports resource 

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
 26

1 management decision making. Monitoring is the subject of this plan, but monitoring results must be 

2 combined with research to develop an understanding of both the resources and the drivers and stressors 

3 that impact the resources, comprising the basis of ecosystem management. Research efforts being 

4 conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators are described in documents such as the Monitoring and 

5 Research Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007) and other work plans. 

6 2.2 Monitoring within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

7 Framework

8 

9 The GCDAMP defines the scope and objectives for the monitoring program whereas the GCMRC is 

10 responsible for designing monitoring protocols to meet the stated needs of the GCDAMP. Figure 3 

11 illustrates the overall context of core monitoring in the GCDAMP. Essentially, core monitoring is a 

12 central component of many of the technical components of the GCDAMP. Core monitoring relies on 

13 inputs from AMP goals, conceptual models, resource inventories that establish basic information on the 

14 distribution of resources, and R&D to develop monitoring protocols. The output from core monitoring 

15 helps to assess the effectiveness of experimental actions or management actions and informs the 

16 development and validation of predictive models. Core monitoring also informs assessments of progress 

17 towards meeting AMP goals and desired future resource conditions. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

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

38 Management Program.

39 

40 

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
 27

1 There is a large and expanding body of literature about how to design and implement ecosystem 

2 monitoring programs (for example, Busch and Trexler, 2003; Williams and others, 2007). Although 

3 specifics vary from program to program, the following key components are generally accepted to be part 

4 of any well-designed monitoring program: 

5 

6 • Clear definition of monitoring purpose(s) 

7 • Definition of target conditions with which to evaluate progress towards achieving desired future 

8 conditions 

9 • Use of conceptual and/or predictive model(s) to guide and inform monitoring program design 

10 • Identification of key ecosystem indicators 

11 • Explicit sampling designs 

12 • Definition of data management, analysis, reporting, and archiving procedures

13 

14 The GCDAMP Strategic Plan defines broad resource-focused goals (see table 1) and multiple manage15 ment objectives under each of the goals. The core monitoring program implemented by GCMRC and 

16 cooperators is intended to inform managers and stakeholders as to whether these goals and objectives are 

17 being met. Although general individual resource goals have been qualitatively defined for the GCDAMP, 

18 these do not provide much specificity, nor are they linked by an overarching goal such as restoration, or 

19 balancing goal outcomes among competing mandates. Resource monitoring can be conducted in the 

20 absence of more specific goals, but scientists cannot tell stakeholders if the goals are being met in the 

21 absence of more specific guidance. The GCDAMP would benefit from additional efforts by the 

22 stakeholders to further identify specific overarching goals and define attainable performance measures. 

23 

24 To be useful in a monitoring context, management objectives should be specific and unambiguous, 

25 measurable with appropriate field methods and data, results oriented, and achievable (Williams and 

26 others, 2007). The current management objectives in the GCDAMP 2003 Strategic Plan meet some, but 

27 not all, of these criteria. Measurable objectives or desired future conditions (DFCs) have yet to be defined 

28 and approved; however, the development of target conditions has recently become a goal of the 

29 GCDAMP’s Technical Work Group and the Department of the Interior. Without clearly defined 

30 measurable and attainable objectives, the Core Monitoring Program is being designed to report relative 

31 measures (for example, a resource is increasing or decreasing relative to a previous baseline 

32 measurement), but this monitoring approach cannot determine whether specified objectives have been (or 

33 can be) achieved. GCMRC proposes the following guidelines for use by managers and stakeholders in 

34 developing DFCs; resource target levels should consider what would be desired over the long term and 

35 identify what may be achievable within the next 10 years. Targets should be developed for each of the 

36 strategic plan management objectives but they should initially focus on the highest priority resources 

37 identified by the AMWG/DOI, for example humpback chub, cultural resources, and sediment 

38 conservation. Targets should be 

39 • easily understandable, 

40 • measurable, 

41 • geographically specific, 

42 • feasible both financially and scientifically, 

43 • attainable, 

44 • written at a level of detail consistent with current knowledge, and 

45 • compatible with the AMP goals and management objectives.

46 •

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Formatted: Line spacing: single, Tab stops:

Not at 37.4 pt
 28

1 2.3 Core Monitoring Information Needs and Indicators of Resource 

2 Condition

3 compatible with the AMP goals and management objectives.

4 

Formatted: Font: 13 pt, Highlight

Formatted: Don't adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Tab stops: 18 pt, Left + 37.4

pt, Left

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Font: 13 pt
 29

1 2.3 Core Monitoring Information Needs and Indicators of Resource 

2 Condition

3 

4 

5 A suite of core monitoring information needs (CMINs) is defined in the GCDAMP strategic plan (2003) 

6 for each goal, tied specifically to the management objectives identified under each goal. After 

7 prioritization of key research questions by AMWG in August 2004, the GCDAMP’s 2005–06 Science 

8 Planning Group (SPG)—an ad hoc committee of the AMWG—refined and prioritized the CMINs under 

9 each strategic goal (see Appendix A for the final list of revised and prioritized CMINs). This core 

10 monitoring plan relies on the revised and prioritized list of CMINs to guide development of the long-term 

11 core monitoring program. 

12 

13 Although the CMINs identify basic information needed by managers to evaluate the success of the AMP, 

14 some CMINs require further interpretation by scientists in order to be implemented in a monitoring 

15 context. For example, the “condition” of the rainbow trout fishery cannot be monitored directly but must 

16 be defined in terms of indicators of condition. For rainbow trout, overall condition is interpreted from 

17 monitoring activities that measure length, weight, and number of captured fish. These measurements are 

18 then run through a simple algorithm to develop a standardized assessment of the overall “condition 

19 factor” for rainbow trout (Anderson and Gutreuter, 1983). Definition of core monitoring protocols first 

20 requires determination of the indicators best suited to meeting the CMINs of the GCDAMP. The specific 

21 indicators being measured for each resource are described in chapter 3.

22 2.4 Monitoring Relative to Modeling 

23 Conceptual models are best used to organize thinking and focus discussions about the ecosystem in 

24 question, since new data generally lead to a better and sometimes different understanding of how the 

25 ecosystem works. For any monitoring program, understanding key linkages in the models is essential to 

26 the process of data analysis and interpretation (Kurtz and others, 2001). 

27 

28 During FY201009–11, GCMRC is planning to continue to expand and refine specific sub-elements of the 

29 Colorado River conceptual ecosystem model where significant new information is available. This 

30 includes understanding the effects of the interrelationship among flows, temperature, and sediment 

31 conservation and evaluating factors that may be responsible for recent increases in native fish. This may 

32 be accomplished by linking Lake Powell and downstream temperature simulations to fine sediment, food 

33 web, and fisheries sub-models. Development of terrestrial landscape models relating dam operations to 

34 cultural and recreational resource responses is also being considered. 

35 

36 One fundamental linkage among modeling, monitoring, and active adaptive management is the use of 

37 monitoring data collected during experimental policy implementation to test key hypotheses about 

38 ecosystem processes and function. If the same models are supplied with different forcing conditions, 

39 perhaps similar to those that would be realized with the implementation of a different management policy, 

40 they may provide quite disparate predictions of resource trend. In this case, past monitoring data and 

41 models cannot offer much insight into optimum policy choices. However if resource state and trend are 

42 monitored during one, or preferably multiple periods of experimental policy implementation, the 

43 observed resource trends can be compared to the model outputs to attempt to identify which hypothesis 

44 (embedded in one of the models) appears most likely to be governing resource response. Paired 

45 monitoring and modeling to discriminate among alternative hypotheses of system function, which has 

Formatted: Font: 13 pt

Formatted: Heading 2

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold,

Highlight
 30

1 been described as a defining characteristic of active adaptive management, and lies in stark contrast to 

2 less informative surveillance monitoring (Yoccoz and others, 2001; Nichols and Williams, 2006).

3 2.5 Integration of Monitoring Activities across GCDAMP Programs Areas

4 The GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (U.S. geological Survey, 2007) explicitly emphasizes the need to 

5 employ an interdisciplinary, integrated science approach over the next 5 years to better support the 

6 AMWG’s goals of managing and sustaining competing resource values to benefit both humans and the 

7 natural ecosystem. An underlying premise of both the GCDAMP Strategic Plan (2003) and the GCMRC 

8 Strategic Science Plan (2007) is that single resources should not be studied in isolation from each other or 

9 from the sociocultural context in which they occur (see fig. 4). 

10 

11 

12 

13 

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

15 data, and potential management actions. Numbers within boxes indicate associated GCDAMP 

16 resource goals, and shaded ellipses indicate a spectrum of both experimental flow and nonflow 

17 management policies.

18 

19 Monitoring will continue to be tied to core monitoring information needs related to specific GCDAMP 

20 goals, but an explicit goal of this plan is to ensure that information will be compatible among the various 

21 monitoring and research projects. This is achieved by explicitly identifying needed inputs for each 

22 monitoring program that will come from or are dependent on outputs from other monitoring and research 

23 programs, and by identifying the appropriate output formats required to address other monitoring program 

24 needs. The use of outward-looking matrices (see example in fig. 5 below) provides one simple 

25 mechanism for articulating linkages and enhancing integration across monitoring program boundaries.

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 

Ti ?

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 

High 

AMWG 

Priority 

INTEGRATED CORE MONITORING PROGRAM 

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold
 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

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

6 

7 2.6 Integration with Other Monitoring Programs in the Region 

8 This general core monitoring program is being designed not only to improve integration across program 

9 areas, but to improve integration with other ongoing monitoring efforts that lie outside the purview of the 

10 GCDAMP, but are nonetheless relevant to evaluating progress towards achieving AMP goals. In biology, 

11 for example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently working in partnership with GCMRC to 

12 collect scientifically robust monitoring data that serve the need for compliance with both the Endangered 

13 Species Act and the Grand Canyon Protection Act. In the recreation arena, GCMRC and Grand Canyon 

14 National Park are collaborating in the collection of historical data about campsite distribution and quality 

15 to serve the needs of both the Park’s Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) monitoring program and 

16 the GCDAMP. Specific examples of current GCDAMP monitoring programs that are being implemented 

17 collaboratively to meet multiple agency needs include the following: 

18 

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

Indicators 

• Drift rates 

• Primary and secondary 

production 

• Fish diet 

• Fish condition factor 

• Fish abundances 

Input to other sub-models and data 

sets 

• QW monitoring 

o Mainstem temp model 

• Meterological data 

• Reservoir / climate analysis 

• Bioenergetic model 

• Tributary synthesis 

• Recreational evaluations 

Output from other sub-models and 

data sets 

• QW 

• Suspended sediment 

monitoring 

• 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 Powel model 
 32

1 1. Mainstem fish monitoring and humpback chub monitoring. Monitoring of native and nonnative 

2 fishes in the mainstem Colorado River and the Little Colorado River has been the result of a close, 

3 productive collaboration among GCMRC, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), and the 

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The monitoring protocols have been developed through a three5 way consultation that involved meeting multiple times per year; all three agencies have worked together 

6 to present monitoring protocols for review by the 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for Grand Canyon 

7 Fishes. Following recommendations of the 2009 PEP, the three agencies are now working together to 

8 conduct data analysis in response to PEP critical reviews and recommendations. 

9 

10 2. Rainbow trout monitoring. GCMRC collaborates with the AZGFD to monitor the rainbow trout 

11 population from Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry. This collaboration has resulted in a shared, integrated 

12 approach to the development and implementation of monitoring techniques to address GCDAMP goal 4. 

13 Both GCMRC and AZGFD personnel work on the monitoring methods, data collection, data 

14 interpretation, and report writing. Both agencies worked closely with the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon 

15 Fishes to review and revise monitoring methods. The two agencies are working together to incorporate 

16 monitoring of early life stages of rainbow trout in collaboration Ecometric, Inc., a private cooperator. 

17 

18 2. Kanab ambersnail monitoring. GCMRC collaborates closely with the AZGFD to monitor the Kanab 

19 ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise and Elves Chasm; on-site monitoring and conservation actions have been 

20 led by AZGFD. Grand Canyon National Park has recently committed to participate in this monitoring 

21 effort as part of their Colorado River Management Plan, and shared photo monitoring from river left, 

22 opposite Vaseys Paradise, is being coordinated among GCMRC, AZGFD, and the Park. 

23 

24 Outside of the GCDAMP, various research and monitoring programs are being implemented to meet 

25 specific resource management needs at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, in Grand Canyon 

26 National Park, and on Hualapai and Navajo Nation lands. National Park Service and tribal resource 

27 management programs relate to ongoing mission-driven or mandated management actions such as 

28 implementation of the Colorado River Management Plan. On National Park Service lands, such 

29 management actions form the core of park activities related to natural, cultural, and recreational 

30 resources. Similar programs may be found on tribal lands adjacent to the parks along the Colorado River. 

31 All of these activities, although occurring outside of the formal GCDAMP process, nonetheless may 

32 provide critical information that could and should be linked to ongoing GCDAMP efforts. 

33 

34 In the early 1990s, responding to criticism that it lacked basic knowledge of natural resources within park 

35 units, the National Park Service (NPS) initiated its own Inventory and Monitoring Program in an effort to 

36 detect long-term changes in biological resources (National Park Service, 1992). At the time of the 

37 program’s inception, basic biological information, including lists of plants and animals, was absent or 

38 incomplete for many park units; in fact, as of 1994, more than 80 percent of NPS units did not have 

39 complete inventories of major taxonomic groups (Stohlgren and others, 1995). Species inventories and 

40 long-term monitoring have both direct and indirect value for the management of Grand Canyon National 

41 Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The GCD monitoring program and adaptive 

42 management program have direct relationships to this NPS program. The GCMRC, through its 

43 monitoring programs, is able to provide to the NPS changes in species lists that are not only useful in 

44 resource interpretation and facilitating visitor appreciation of natural resources, but are also critical for 

45 making management decisions. In addition, knowledge of which species are present, particularly species 

46 of management concern, where they occur, and the status of their populations provides for informed 

47 planning and decision making on the part of the NPS. 

48 

49 In addition to information on the biological systems of the river corridor, GCMRC also provides to the 

50 Park Service information on changes occurring to recreation and cultural resources in the river corridor. 

51 Information from GCDAMP activities has assisted the NPS in quantifying camping beach availability and 
 33

1 condition for the CRMP, while previous beach inventories form a core component of current GCDAMP2 related campsite assessments. 

3 

4 A host of research and monitoring programs are currently underway within Glen and Grand Canyons to 

5 address key resource concerns and to indirectly address some of the interests of the GCDAMP. Included 

6 are baseline programs such as mountain lion (Felis concolor) and big horn sheep (Ovis candensis) 

7 inventories, threatened and endangered species inventories, for example southwestern willow flycatcher 

8 (Empidonax trailii extimus) or spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), and monitoring of springs hydrology and 

9 neo-tropical birds. In addition to natural resource inventories and monitoring, some research related to 

10 recreational use of the Colorado River has been undertaken in recent years to inform development of the 

11 CRMP, Backcountry Management Plan, and Aircraft Management Plan.

12 

13 
 34

1 Chapter 35. Development of Individual Core Monitoring Plans 

2 and Management Strategy, Staffing and Budget to Support 

3 Core MonitoringThem

4 Introduction

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

6 in the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act for the

7 

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

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

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

11 created.

12 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 

23 The goal of this chapter is to outline the strategy for administration of the core monitoring program 

24 outlined in this plan and to identify estimated annual costs and GCMRC staff needs for implementation of 

25 the program. Cost estimates also include ongoing support for management of monitoring data and making 

26 the data and related interpretive reports and fact sheets accessible to managers, scientists, and the public. 

27 Distribution of these critical products shall be accomplished primarily through the GCMRC and USGS 

28 Web sites, but also through the various program managers and the outreach coordinator position at the 

29 Southwest Biological Science Center in Flagstaff, Ariz. As previously mentioned, the projected costs also 

30 include an additional 5 percent for ongoing research and evaluation of new and innovative monitoring 

31 methods intended to promote a quality program aimed at controlling costs and minimizing impacts to the 

32 wilderness setting of Grand Canyon National Park.

33 Generally, after stakeholder needs are identified in adaptive management programs, development and 

34 implementation of monitoring programs typically proceed in three phases (Atkinson and others, 2004):

35 1. Resources are inventoried and key relationships between physical process, species, habitats, and 

36 other causes of variation such as dam operations are identified.

37 This was largely completed for most resources by the early 2000s

38 2. Long-term monitoring protocols and sample designs are pilot tested.

39 This step has been the focus for GCRMC in the past 8-10 years for many resources

40 3. Long-term monitoring and adaptive management activities are implemented.

41 This is where we are now

42 

43 As discussed in chapter 1, the GCDAMP Monitoring and Research Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007) 

44 lays out a general four-step process for defining and refining core monitoring projects associated with 

45 various GCDAMP goals and key resources based on the best currently available information. This 

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold,

Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold,

Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold,

Italic
 35

1 General Core Monitoring Plan is the first step (1), and the remaining three steps comprise the following 

2 activities:

3 2. Annual Information Needs Workshop (multiple resources may be addressed)

4 3. Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) reviews

5 4. Core Monitoring Program report review and approval

6 This chapter describes these steps in detail and expands greatly on step 4 of the process and the 

7 information necessary to support the development and implementation of individual core monitoring 

8 plans. This general plan will outline an adaptive management approach which integrates risk assessment, 

9 trade-off analyses, and specified criteria in the development of the individual plans such that managers 

10 will have the information necessary to make informed decisions about the scope, intensity, and cost of the 

11 core monitoring program. The AMWG and TWG have identified an initial goal of 40-60% of the science 

12 budget to be devoted to core monitoring. This initial goal was defined to allow for substantial funds to be 

13 available for research studies and other monitoring aspects designed to complement the core monitoring 

14 program in order to test whether the goals and objectives of the AMP are being achieved (i.e., ROD 

15 operations of GCD). 

16 

17 This general core monitoring plan results in projected expenditures above the goal articulated by AMWG 

18 and TWG based on the myriad CMINs described by the program. GCMRC is not in a position to make 

19 policy choices about how to reduce costs, accept higher risk associated with potentially less robust 

20 programs, and define goal. Thus, this process must inherently be iterative working with the TWG and 

21 AMWG to develop individual plans that provide a range of options with varying tradeoffs of cost, 

22 statistical precision, and extent. GCMRC can articulate measures of risk associated with these choices, to 

23 the extent practicable, but the managers must make choices about how to implement the program. It is 

24 likely that the program will choose less risk-averse options the first time through this process and that 

25 revisions are likely in order to weigh total core monitoring program costs against risk. The sediment 

26 program is a good example of this situation. The sediment core monitoring plan was conditionally 

27 approved by TWG knowing that after other plans were developed that we would want to revisit the 

28 sediment plan to reconsider costs and relationship to program goals and overall cost of core monitoring. 

29 Chapter 1 describes the first process undertaken by the Core Monitoring Team and the resulting 

30 “Christmas tree” approach. Thus, the cost estimates in this plan likely bracket the upper end of the 

31 possible funding needs. It is up to the managers to make informed choices about reducing the cost of this 

32 program based on the analyses described here. 

33 3.1 Principles of Core Monitoring Development

34 Environmental decisions in the GCDAMP generally involve complex scientific and technical issues, plus

35 a wide variety of program participants, scientific uncertainty, value conflicts, ecosystem, and social 

36 dynamics all combine to make environmental decisions difficult to make. Thus, the “Christmas tree” 

37 approach described above which included all the “ornaments”. The goal of this process is to further refine 

38 those choices working in a collaborative relationship between TWG, AMWG, and GCMRC. To 

39 accomplish this, the development of individual core monitoring plans will adopt a collaborative adaptive 

40 management framework utilizing (a) program Goals and CMINs, (b) criteria for element inclusion within 

41 plans, (c) risk assessment analysis, (d) trade-off analyses, and most of all (e) stakeholder involvement in 

42 the development of all of these elements. 

Formatted: List Number 2, Indent: Left: 18.7

pt, Hanging: 18.7 pt, Space Before: 6 pt,

After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text

Formatted: Body Text, Justified, Space Before:

 12 pt

Formatted: Body Text

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
 36

1 3.1.1 Goals and CMINs

2 Termination of the Core Monitoring Team approach to developing a core monitoring plan coincided with 

3 the initiation of the Science Planning Group (SPG) in summer 2005. The primary purpose of the SPG was 

4 to develop a long-term experimental plan, but in the course of this effort the SPG revisited, refined, and 

5 prioritized the resource goals and core monitoring information needs for the program. The results of this 

6 prioritization exercise, reflected in Appendix A, have been used to guide the development of the 

7 monitoring protocols for the individual core monitoring plans. The priorities and ranking provided by the 

8 SPG will be used as the primary criteria in developing the individual plans. The SPG also recognized the 

9 need for the GCDAMP to more explicitly define the goals of the AMP and desired future conditions. At 

10 the time of this writing the AMP has begun serious consideration of desired future conditions. However, 

11 without DFCs it is impossible to determine which of the core monitoring proposals meets program needs, 

12 or perhaps is beyond our needs. At the December 1, 2009 Core Monitoring Workshop with TWG, the 

13 second highest concern was whether we can proceed without DFCs, and if so how and what does it mean 

14 to the program? Many of the program elements may not need DFCs to be approved, but others might 

15 really need them, how do we move forward? This question is unresolved except to say that this program 

16 can move forward in developing the individual plans with good trade-off analyses and risk assessments 

17 which will likely have to be revisited in an adaptive management framework after DFCs are established.

18 At that point the plans can be modified to be more responsive to the DFCs. It is likely that without DFCs 

19 the plans will have to be broader in scope, and thus more costly to implement.

20 3.1.2 Criteria

21 The primary criteria for the development of monitoring protocols and the eventual core monitoring plans 

22 themselves is the CMINs, as modified by the SPG (Appendix 1). In addition, GCMRC should consider 

23 the following types of criteria for element inclusion in core monitoring plans. These criteria should be 

24 discussed and evaluated and expanded as necessary in collaboration with TWG during the annual 

25 information needs workshop prior to the PEP review. Example criteria could include, but are not limited 

26 to:

27 

28 • Core monitoring proposals should be based on priority: high priority items should be included, 

29 some elements of core monitoring will be higher priority than others and should be identified

30 such as endangered species, water quality standards, and other compliance requirements. Be clear 

31 about the process of how priorities are set for the CMP. What resources need to be monitored or 

32 are just scientifically interesting?

33 • Confidence: include only those activities with high confidence of relating to the eventual DFCs

34 • CMINs: activity is essential to address the CMIN using a minimalist perspective knowing that the 

35 overall budget for core monitoring is beyond the 40-60% target identified by TWG.

36 • Revision: develop a way to reduce or eliminate a CM protocol when it is no longer needed. 

37 Establish a metric of success.

38 • Adequacy to answer critical questions and inform critical decisions.

39 

40 3.1.3 Risk Assessment

41 Risk assessments should be developed to provide scientific input for analyses of cost-effectiveness. Risk 

42 assessments are necessary for critical choices (qualitative or quantitative based on available 

43 resources).The type, extent, and complexity of risk assessments should be discussed with TWG during the 

Formatted: Normal, Tab stops: 18 pt, Left

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1

+ Aligned at: 18 pt + Indent at: 36 pt

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1

+ Aligned at: 18 pt + Indent at: 36 pt, Tab

stops: 18 pt, Left

Formatted: Font: Times, 11 pt, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: Times, 11 pt, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Normal, Tab stops: 18 pt, Left

Formatted: Normal, Tab stops: 18 pt, Left
 37

1 information needs workshops (see below). In some instances a qualitative assessment will suffice for 

2 certain variables while in other cases a more rigorous modeling approach may be necessary.

3 

4 Examples might include:

5 • Discussion of trade-offs between statistical precision, sampling intensity/extent, cost, and 

6 effectiveness and how the program should look at the scientific implications of these trade offs

7 • This includes recommendations on design and statistical analysis, including the use of power 

8 analysis to develop designs and set sampling levels to achieve desired precision

9 • Frequency/extent: a series of options might be given which show how the power is reduced, or 

10 other effect including cost, by either reducing or increasing sampling rate or extent

11 

12 The current work on the Goal 2 fish program illustrates how risk assessments are important in developing 

13 core monitoring plans. First, GCMRC held an information needs workshop with TWG members

14 identifying critical information needs and integrated that information with their task to the PEP for the 

15 review of the fish program. The PEP considered these issues along with the proposed monitoring 

16 protocols and requested a number of analyses (e.g., sensitivity, risk assessment, etc.) to test their opinions 

17 on how to modify the program to be responsive to GCDAMP needs. That work is ongoing. It is the intent

18 to bring forward a plan that incorporates these analyses to TWG such that TWG and AMWG 

19 consideration of a core monitoring plan can be informed by these risk analyses.

20 3.1.4 Trade-off Analyses

21 In order for managers to make good decisions, the necessary decision support system must be in place to 

22 fully evaluate risk, costs, and the ability to meet program goals. This program lacks information on trade23 offs between statistical precision and sampling intensity that will drive costs, yet these analyses should 

24 drive our decision making.

25 

26 Maness (2005) proposed that to fully reflect all of these considerations, the tradeoff system should have 

27 the following objectives:

28 1) Fully identify the costs, benefits and reversibility of land use decisions (including the long term 

29 impact on our sustaining ecosystems) where possible to do so.

30 2) Use discussion and consensus to carefully craft a vision of the overall goals of the management 

31 paradigm including the ethical considerations that define the boundaries of decision making. The 

32 vision should describe the higher standard required for high cost and/or irreversible land use 

33 decisions that should be made based on the Safe Minimum Standard argument.

34 3) Build a public trust in the process of resolving conflicts about the balance of inputs, outputs and 

35 attributes to support the vision.

36 4) Continually improve our performance and goal setting as learning occurs and new information 

37 becomes available.

38 

39 Although this program does not have DFCs in place, it is possible to move forward using trade-off 

40 analyses to weigh the various types of considerations under each specific core monitoring plan. It is likely 

41 that this will have to be a an iterative process implementing step 4 above. Trade-off analyses could take 

42 many forms, most are familiar with NEPA analysis in which a range of alternatives is discussed with the 

43 various costs, effects, and benefits described for decision-makers. In many ways the use of trade-off 

44 analyses is similar and sometimes the same as a risk analysis (see discussion above). GCMRC and TWG 

45 should discuss how trade-offs could be described during the information needs workshop. These will 

46 likely focus on issue important to stakeholders such as cost and effectiveness in answering key program 

47 questions.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1

+ Aligned at: 18 pt + Indent at: 36 pt

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Normal, Tab stops: 18 pt, Left

Formatted: Heading 3, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text, Tab stops: Not at

 18 pt

Formatted: Font: 13 pt

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level:

1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 18 pt + Indent

at: 36 pt

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 11 pt, Not

Bold

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
 38

1 3.2 Process to Develop Individual Core Monitoring Plans

2 3.2.1 Information Needs Workshop

3 GCDAMP monitoring programs are currently in various stages of development, with some being ready 

4 for long-term implementation and others still undergoing research and development. After each project 

5 has been test piloted, it will be subject to another PEP review prior to finalization of the long-term 

6 monitoring protocols. This review will be preceded by a TWG information needs workshop to reaffirm

7 and clarify the monitoring information needs (CMINs) identified in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan (2003)

8 and updated here in Appendix 1. GCMRC will conduct a TWG workshop to review and refine specific 

9 management goals, information needs, and the scope of monitoring for a specific project. The workshop 

10 will also identify specific questions that managers would like to have addressed in the follow-up protocol 

11 evaluation panel for each resource goal. For example, in FY2009 a TWG information needs workshop 

12 was held to review the CMINs associated with native and nonnative fish monitoring. The schedule for 

13 conducting information needs workshops on other core monitoring projects is shown in table 3 at the end 

14 of this chapter. This is the point where needed risk assessments and trade-off analyses will be discussed 

15 between GCMRC and TWG and integrated into the monitoring plan development. GCMRC will provide 

16 to TWG a discussion of the trade-offs and potential choices in the protocols that would be reasonable to 

17 consider based on GCMRC experience in developing the protocols. For example, in developing a 

18 protocol for fish sampling, choices were made about the extent, frequency, and cost associated with it. 

19 These should be presented to TWG to facilitate discussion of further analyses if needed. 

20 3.2.2 Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel Reviews

21 For each goal or group of interrelated goals and associated resources, the GCMRC convenes PEPs to 

22 review the monitoring needs articulated by managers during the information needs workshop, review the 

23 results of pilot monitoring efforts and other relevant research and development activities, and recommend 

24 future monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the monitoring project. These PEP 

25 review panels comprise independent scientists who have no vested interest in GCDAMP. The scope of 

26 the PEP’s review will be articulated in writing in advance of the PEP and supported with relevant 

27 literature. The following information is collected, compiled, and distributed to the panels in advance of 

28 the review:

29 • GCDAMP management objective and information needs, as refined in the annual information 

30 needs workshop including requested risk assessments or trade-off analyses

31 • Past and presently used monitoring protocols, including their technical or scientific basis

32 • Information on existing protocols, including methods and articles that describe various 

33 monitoring approaches

34 The review process may also involve reviewing technical presentations from GCMRC and other 

35 researchers, as well as field trips. The panel develops its final report and recommendations in an executive 

36 session. The PEP report presents findings and recommendations to the GCMRC chief and the science 

37 advisors, reviews the positives and negatives of current monitoring protocols, and makes 

38 recommendations for improvement. The results of each PEP evaluation are reviewed by TWG members 

39 and comments will be forwarded to the GCMRC chief for consideration before new or modified 

40 monitoring procedures are developed. A more detailed discussion of the overall PEP process is provided 

41 in Appendix B.

Formatted: Body Text, Justified, Space Before:

 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Univers 47 CondensedLight,

Bold

Formatted: Body Text

Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 54 pt
 39

1 3.2.3 Core Monitoring Program Reports/Individual Core Monitoring Plans

2 In keeping with the goals, priorities and basic approaches outlined in this general plan, GCMRC will 

3 prepare an individual core monitoring plan (report) for each project being evaluated for core monitoring 

4 status, incorporating the results of information needs workshops and the PEP evaluations and 

5 recommendations as well as TWG input. Each CMP report will include the following information:

6 • GCDAMP goal(s) addressed including CMINs

7 • Project title

8 • Principal investigator(s)

9 • Geographic scope

10 • Justification for monitoring effort including criteria for protocol inclusion

11 • Project goals, tasks, and schedule by task and CMIN

12 • Key science questions and managers’ information needs addressed

13 • Linkage to other resources processes and models

14 • Monitoring protocols, including sampling designs, level of data resolution, accuracy and

15 precision assessment, etc.

16 o Risk assessments for critical monitoring choices

17 o Trade-off analyses, e.g. for various suite of choices for the overall program

18 • Expected outcomes, including outputs by fiscal year, reports, guidelines, models, etc.

19 • Projected cost of project or program by fiscal year using trade-off analyses describing a range of 

20 choices and costs based on risk assessments

21 Each draft final individual core monitoring plan will be reviewed by the science advisors and then 

22 provided to the TWG for their final review, deliberation, and endorsement. Issues related to the report 

23 will be resolved at the TWG level or elevated to the AMWG and/or Secretary’s designee, if needed.

24 3.2.4 Implementation Timelines

25 The four-step approach to developing core monitoring protocols has been developed by GCMRC in order 

26 to meet the diverse information needs of GCDAMP stakeholders using a scientifically defensible, peer27 reviewed process. Although sufficient science has been completed to define some of the required long28 term monitoring methods for fine-sediment mass balance, terrestrial vegetation, and monitoring native 

29 and nonnative fishes, several other areas of monitoring have not yet been completely resolved. Areas of 

30 monitoring where research and development on monitoring are still underway and for which PEPs are 

31 planned between fiscal years 2009 and 2015 include the following subject areas:

32 • aquatic food web and downstream water quality (nutrient mass balance and trophic linkages),

33 • cultural resources and archaeological sites,

34 • Lake Powell water quality,

35 • campsites and recreation, and

36 • socioeconomics.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold

Formatted

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, Not Bold

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 18.7 pt,

Hanging: 18.7 pt, Space Before: 6 pt, After: 6

pt, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 18 pt +

Tab after: 36 pt + Indent at: 36 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Heading 3, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text
 40

1 The protocol evaluation process will initially be focused on ongoing monitoring projects that have 

2 undergone one or more PEP evaluations and have been piloted, independently peer reviewed, and 

3 implemented for one to several years using methods deemed by the PEPs as adequate and appropriate for 

4 long-term monitoring projects in this category. Other projects that are currently in various stages of 

5 research and development will be brought forward for review over the course of the next 5 years with the 

6 goal of having a fully developed core monitoring program in place by FY2015. The proposed schedule 

7 for undertaking core monitoring reviews of all projects is summarized in table 3.

8 

9 Projects that are approved for core monitoring status will receive first consideration for funding each year 

10 and will not undergo the same annual competitive review as other projects. However, core monitoring 

11 projects will be reviewed during the development of the GCMRC annual or biennial work plan to 

12 incorporate new information, findings, and monitoring techniques that may improve their effectiveness. 

13 After FY2015, a more comprehensive review of core monitoring projects will be conducted at 5-year 

14 intervals.

15 

16 Table 3. 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 FY07/09 FY10 FY11

 4 Lees Ferry 

trout

FY00 FY01–06 FY09

FY07

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–

09**

FY11** FY11* FY11*

10 Hydropower N/A FY07 FY10 FY10 FY11

11 Cultural 

Resources

FY00 FY07–12 FY12 FY12 FY12

17 * The GCMRC currently plans to conduct a single protocol evaluation panel to review aquatic food base studies, 

18 downstream water-quality monitoring, and Lake Powell monitoring 

19 ** Specifically campsite monitoring

20 

21 3.3 Program Management and Role of Cooperators

22 The establishment of GCMRC as an independent, policy-neutral science center that is not affiliated with a 

23 particular stakeholder group or management agency, is a fundamental principle of the GCDAMP. In 

24 keeping with this principle, this plan assumes that the GCMRC will exercise overall responsibility for the 

Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 6 pt
 41

1 management and implementation of the Core Monitoring Program for the AMP. More specifically, the 

2 role of GCMRC will be to implement and /or oversee implementation of all aspects of core monitoring as 

3 defined previously in table 2. However, this plan also recognizes that several land and resources

4 management agencies, including the NPS, USFWS, AZGFD, and the Tribes, have statutory or regulatory 

5 responsibilities for long-term management of resources in Grand Canyon. In addition, the USGS, the 

6 parent organization of GCMRC, includes many leading experts in river science. Collectively, these 

7 agencies/entities have technical skills and capabilities that can assist in conducting some of the core 

8 monitoring work being recommended by the GCDAMP. 

9 

10 Although GCMRC has the overall lead for the GCDAMP core monitoring program, Federal and State 

11 agencies and the Tribes are an integral part of several ongoing GCDAMP monitoring efforts, including 

12 monitoring of humpback chub and other native fishes, rainbow trout and other nonnative fishes, 

13 hydrology, archaeological resources, and traditional cultural properties. Having these agencies/entities as 

14 active partners in the GCDAMP science program helps meet their statutory responsibilities and facilitates 

15 the integration of the scientific information into management processes and decisions.

16 

17 GCMRC will use the most cost-effective mechanisms to implement core monitoring projects working 

18 with the TWG to develop choices for core monitoring using trade-off analyses. In general, GCMRC will 

19 prepare Requests for Proposals and use an open, competitive process for awarding funding for 

20 implementation of core monitoring projects. Limited competition cooperative agreements and/or contracts 

21 in accordance with Federal regulations may be used to conduct specific core monitoring tasks (for 

22 example, data collection , QA/QC, etc.) if potential Federal and State agencies and the Tribal cooperators 

23 agree to (a) conduct the required work at a fair cost, (b) meet the required technical specifications as 

24 determined by GCMRC based on consideration of PEPs, Science Advisor, and TWG recommendations, 

25 and (c) comply with independent peer review requirements established by GCMRC. Periodic evaluations 

26 should be conducted to ensure that cooperators are meeting these fundamental requirements. GCMRC 

27 scientists may conduct field research and monitoring under the same conditions. In every case, the USGS 

28 will hold its own proposals to the same level of rigorous outside peer review as all others.

29 

30 3.3.1 GCMRC Staffing Requirements

31 The types of staff needed within the GCMRC to oversee, implement, and maintain a core monitoring 

32 program (2012 and beyond) will be different from those needed to initially develop the program (1995–

33 2012). The former requires staff to implement or oversee monitoring activities, provide training to staff 

34 and cooperators, and report the results in a timely manner. The latter requires higher level researchers to 

35 develop and test new technologies and monitoring processes. Some shifting in GCMRC staffing will be 

36 needed as the program moves from a research and developmentn R&D phase into the core monitoring 

37 phase. Since being established in 1995, the GCMRC has strategically maintained a high degree of 

38 flexibility in its organization so that the permanent portion of the staff can be adapted to core monitoring 

39 needs as they become better understood and supported by the stakeholder program.

40 

41 The GCMRC’s estimated general staffing requirements to implement core monitoring based on the 

42 current inclusive nature of the CMINs and identified monitoring needs consist of the following:

43 • Core Monitoring Program Management – 4.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) permanent 

44 positions at the (Government Service) GS-11 to 15 range (senior ecologist, science chief, 

45 biology, physical and modeling, sociocultural, data management, logistics program manager)

46 • Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis – 4.0 FTEs at the GS-7 to 14 range (biometrician, 

47 database manager, GIS technician, data archivist and remote sensing analyst)

Formatted: Heading 3, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text
 42

1 • Physical Science, Survey, and Modeling – 7.5 FTEs at the GS-7 to 13 range (research 

2 hydrologist, hydrologist, hydrologic technician, surveyor)

3 • Biological Science – 7.5 FTEs at the GS-05 to 13 range (aquatic ecologist, fish biologist, 

4 biological technician, terrestrial biologist, limnologist or hydrologist)

5 • Sociocultural Science – 2.0 FTEs at the GS-09 to 11 range (geographer, cultural monitoring data 

6 analyst, and recreation data analyst)

7 • Logistics – 1.0 FTEs at the (Wage Grade) WG-08 range (logistical support technician)

8 • This funding projection is likely to represent the upper end of implementing core monitoring 

9 based on current identified needs. It is possible that working through the individual plans while 

10 considering trade-offs between costs, precision, and program needs that this could be reduced, especially 

11 if DFCs are identified by the program. However, reaching those decisions through a collaborative 

12 approach will be difficult and may require facilitation in order to be successful as this program has had 

13 difficulty in reaching these types of decisions in the past. Recommendations on how to implement the 

14 core monitoring program will be supported by science generated at GCMRC and accompanied by their 

15 professional opinion, but will be concluded by TWG and AMWG integrating policy concerns that go 

16 beyond what science can provide. It is important that GCMR retain its neutral science role in this process 

17 while providing the necessary technical information so that TWG and AMWG can make the best 

18 informed policy decisions on how to manage the GCDAMP.

19 

20 3.3.2 Information Outreach

21 The role of outreach coordinator is covered by a full-time position in the Southwest Biological Science 

22 Center—the regional USGS center where GCMRC is located. The various science program managers, as 

23 well as the chief and deputy chief of the GCMRC share the responsibility of getting new information out 

24 to the public and managers in a timely and useful format. Much of this is accomplished through frequent 

25 stakeholder interactions (Federal advisory committee meetings) and will be done to a greater degree in the 

26 future through WEBEX, etc. Regarding monitoring information, the DASA program manager is the 

27 primary contact for providing technical assistance related to data access.

28 

29 The estimated total staffing need to support full implementation of the GCMP is approximately 26 full30 time equivalent positions within the GCRMC. Administrative and general IT/computer support, as well as 

31 public outreach coordination with the public and management stakeholders would be provided through 

32 the USGS, SBSC, Western Region of the Biological Resources Discipline. Because of the recurring and 

33 long-term nature of core monitoring, many of the positions will be permanent full-time positions. As 

34 such, under full implementation of the CMP, the number of full-time permanent positions at GCMRC is 

35 projected to grow from 19 to 26 between now and 2015.

36 3.3.3 Logistics and Permitting

37 The GCMRC provides complete logistical support for 35–50 research, monitoring, and administrative 

38 river trips through Grand Canyon annually. These trips range in length from 7 to 21 days and from 4 to 36 

39 people in size. Trips comprise a variety of motor- and oar-powered boats operated by contracted boat 

40 operators. Monitoring projects operating in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon 

41 Dam to Lees Ferry) are supported by a variety of motor-powered boats operated by GCMRC researchers 

42 and contracted boat operators. Additionally, monitoring activities on the Little Colorado River are 

43 supported by helicopter services contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation.

44 

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Body Text, Space Before: 0 pt,

After: 0 pt, No bullets or numbering, Adjust

space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust

space between Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Body Text

Formatted: Heading 3, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 3, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text
 43

1 The trip planning and scheduling process begins in the fall when the logistics coordinator, in cooperation 

2 with contracted PIs, program managers, and the RCS staff work together to generate a draft schedule of 

3 trips for the fiscal year. The schedule includes launch and take-out dates, numbers of personnel, and 

4 specific boat and boat operator requests for each trip. Researchers must submit a Trip Request Form a 

5 minimum of 60 days prior to the scheduled launch date. This form provides information for two purposes: 

6 (1) determine and schedule logistical and support services, and (2) complete a GCNP River Trip 

7 Application in order to meet the GCNP 45-day deadline for submitting access permit applications.

8 

9 When feasible and practical, multiple monitoring projects may be scheduled together on a single trip to 

10 reduce costs and trip numbers and to promote more integration between the various monitoring projects. 

11 As details of sampling design in each of the long-term monitoring projects become better known, 

12 planning discussions focused at better integrating monitoring will continue, including input from the 

13 various project chiefs and the logistics program manager as to the feasibility of further combining trips 

14 and activities.

15 3.3.4 Core Monitoring Program Costs

16 A variety of sources have been used to estimate the annual costs of core monitoring activities, as shown in 

17 table 6. A number of the projects, particularly those that have completed the research and development 

18 and PEP review and recommendation steps, appear with detailed budgets in the GCMRC’s biennial 

19 FY2010–11 work plan and budget. The total annual cost for quality of water and sediment monitoring 

20 projects related to goals 7 and 8 are the best known of the 11 projects described in this plan. However the 

21 other nine monitoring projects are associated with only “ballpark” estimates because their associated 

22 R&D and PEP review phases are not yet completed. The total gross cost for the core monitoring program 

23 is estimated at approximately $6,000,000 annually, representing about 60 percent of the total Glen 

24 Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program annual budget (on the basis of the FY2010 total).

25 

26 In recent annual work plans, the logistics budgets are distributed across GCMRC monitoring projects 

27 based on a formula proportional to use of services. The formula takes into account contractor costs, trip 

28 size and length, and a percentage of operating expenses, salaries, and permitting costs. Effective 

29 communication with PIs and sensitivity to and awareness of the challenges they face in implementing 

30 their core monitoring projects enables the GCMRC to offer more customized (and therefore more cost31 effective and productive) logistical support than other support strategies utilized previously. Retaining 

32 control over the process of supporting trips also facilitates compliance with NPS regulations and allows 

33 greater control over issues sensitive to the general public and the “recreational river community.”

34 

35 Where possible, costs shown in table 6 have been derived from the monitoring project descriptions 

36 contained in the FY2010–11 annual work plan. In cases where the provisional monitoring projects are not 

37 yet underway and therefore not described in the annual work plan, best estimates of the project costs have 

38 been made by the various program managers who oversee development of the proposed monitoring. The 

39 estimated gross costs for each project (table 6) have been broken down into several categories, including 

40 the proportion of each project that will be directly supported by the GCMRC science and management 

41 staff, the logistics needs, the portion that is intended to be outsourced through contracts or cooperative 

42 agreements, other related expenses and estimated indirect costs for implementing the projects. Currently 

43 these are considered to be general estimates, but project costs derived from annual work plans (such as 

44 goals 7 and 8) are thought to be close to the projected longer term costs, assuming annual indexing for 

45 inflation.

46 

Formatted: Heading 3, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Body Text, Don't keep with next
1 Table 6. Summary breakdown of annual estimated costs (direct and indirect) for each core monitoring project

2 

Goal Project

Total gross 

costs including 

program 

managers

Total 

indirect 

costs

Total direct 

cost

GCMRC 

salaries 

and 

benefits

Logistics

GCMRC / 

USGS other 

costs

Outsou

(condu

outs

USG

1 Food Web 392,847 68,180 324,667 281,667 30,000 13,000 —2 Native Fish 1,474,608 157,975 1,316,633 226,746 233,000 62,000 794,883 Extirpated Species — — — — — — —4 Rainbow Trout 160,328 22,897 137,431 82,431 15,000 — 40,000 5 Springs / KAS 127,555 19,855 107,700 84,178 5,000 — 18,522 6 Riparian Vegetation 268,371 40,416 227,955 132,955 30,000 15,000 50,000 7a Quality of Water—Lake Powell 288,301 47,448 240,853 173,853 — 46,000 21,000 7b Quality of Water—Downstream 

including Suspended Sediment Transport and Mass Balance

 1,056,672* 183,389 873,283 337,624 62,593 473,066 —

8 Sediment 758,123* 111,685 646,438 377,601 62,622 44,802 161,419 Recreation 231,920 33,781 198,139 134,639 8,000 3,000 52,500 10 Hydropower 39,193 6,802 32,391 32,391 — — —11 Cultural 607,798 104,253 503,545 186,545 60,000 247,000 10,000 12a Remote Sensing & Change 

Analysis

 791,562 90,181 701,381 232,823 40,000 45,530 383,02

12b Program Management & 

Overview

 160,492 27,854 132,638 132,638 

 TOTALS 6,357,771 914,717 5,443,054 2,416,091 546,215 949,398 1,531,* The estimated annual cost for monitoring is based on the FY2010–11 work plan and budget where the project already exists anhas been described and proposed as a core monitoring effort following completion of Protocol Evaluation Panel review and recommendations to the TWG. All others remain in the R&D phase pending final review and recommendations to the TWG.

3 
1 2.7 Process to Develop a Long-Term Core Monitoring Program

2 As discussed in chapter 1, the GCDAMP Monitoring and Research Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007) 

3 lays out a four-step process for defining and refining core monitoring projects associated with various 

4 GCDAMP goals and key resources based on the best currently available information. This General Core 

5 Monitoring Plan is the first step, and the remaining three steps comprise the following activities:

6 1. Annual Information Needs Workshop (multiple resources may be addressed)

7 2. Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) reviews

8 3. Core Monitoring Program report review and approval

9 2.7.1 Annual Information Needs Workshop

10 GCDAMP monitoring programs are currently in various stages of development, with some being ready 

11 for long-term implementation and others still undergoing R&D. After each project has been test piloted, it 

12 will be subject to another PEP review prior to finalization of the long-term monitoring protocols. This 

13 review will be preceded by a TWG information needs workshop to reaffirm, or if needed to clarify the 

14 monitoring information needs identified in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan (2003). GCMRC will conduct an 

15 annual TWG workshop to review and refine specific management goals, information needs, and the scope 

16 of all monitoring projects that will be evaluated for core monitoring status in a given fiscal year. The 

17 workshop will also identify specific questions that managers would like to have addressed in the follow18 up protocol evaluation panel for each resource goal. For example, in FY2009 a TWG information needs 

19 workshop was held to review the CMINs associated with native and nonnative fish monitoring. The 

20 schedule for conducting information needs workshops on other core monitoring projects is shown in table 

21 3 at the end of this chapter.

22 

23 2.7.2 Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel Reviews

24 For each goal or group of interrelated goals and associated resources, the GCMRC convenes PEPs to 

25 review the monitoring needs articulated by managers during the information needs workshop, review the 

26 results of pilot monitoring efforts and other relevant research and development activities, and recommend 

27 future monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the monitoring project. These PEP 

28 review panels comprise independent scientists who have no vested interest in GCDAMP. The scope of 

29 the PEP’s review will be articulated in writing in advance of the PEP and supported with relevant 

30 literature. The following information is collected, compiled, and distributed to the panels in advance of 

31 the review:

32 • GCDAMP management objective and information needs, as refined in the annual information 

33 needs workshop

34 • Past and presently used monitoring protocols, including their technical or scientific basis

35 • Information on existing protocols, including methods and articles that describe various 

36 monitoring approaches

37 The review process may also involve reviewing technical presentations from GCMRC and other 

38 researchers, as well as field trips. The panel develops its final report and recommendations in an executive 

39 session. The PEP report presents findings and recommendations to the GCMRC chief and the science 

40 advisors, reviews the positives and negatives of current monitoring protocols, and makes 
 2

1 recommendations for improvement. The results of each PEP evaluation are reviewed by TWG members 

2 and comments are forwarded to the GCMRC chief for consideration before new or modified monitoring 

3 procedures are developed and implemented. A more detailed discussion of the overall PEP process is 

4 provided in Appendix B.

5 2.7.3 Core Monitoring Program Reports

6 In keeping with the goals, priorities and basic approaches outlined in this general plan, GCMRC will 

7 prepare a report for each project being evaluated for core monitoring status, incorporating the results of 

8 information needs workshops and the PEP evaluations. Each CMP report will include the following 

9 information:

10 • GCDAMP goal(s) addressed

11 • Project title

12 • Principal investigator(s)

13 • Geographic scope

14 • Justification for monitoring effort

15 • Project goals, tasks, and schedule by task

16 • Key science questions and managers’ information needs addressed

17 • Linkage to other resources processes and models

18 • Monitoring protocols, including sampling designs, level of data resolution, accuracy and 

19 precision assessment, etc.

20 • Expected outcomes, including outputs by fiscal year, reports, guidelines, models, etc.

21 • Projected cost of project or program by fiscal year

22 

23 Each final CMP will be reviewed by the science advisors and then provided to the TWG for their review, 

24 deliberation, and endorsement. Issues related to the report will be resolved at the TWG level or elevated 

25 to the AMWG and/or Secretary’s designee, if needed.

26 
 3

1 2.8 Outline of the Process to Develop Specific Core Monitoring Program 

2 Elements

3 

4 After stakeholder needs are identified, monitoring program development and implementation typically 

5 proceeds in three phases (Atkinson and others, 2004):

6 

7 1. Resources are inventoried and key relationships between physical process, species, habitats, and 

8 other causes of variation such as dam operations are identified.

9 2. Long-term monitoring protocols and sample designs are pilot tested.

10 3. Long-term monitoring and adaptive management activities are implemented.

11 

12 Development of GCMRC core monitoring projects generally follows a similar phased approach. An 

13 expanded version of this process is outlined in table 2. The process depicted in table 2 will be used to 

14 guide development and implementation of all core monitoring projects described in chapter 3.

15 Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
 4

1 Table 2. Programmatic approach used by GCMRC to guide development and implementation 

2 of the Core Monitoring Program for the GCDAMP (after Palmer and Landis, 2002; Turner and 

3 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

Monitoring design

Measurement and analysis 

protocols (SOPs)

Quality Assurance Plan

Develop 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

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt
 5

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

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 

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Space After: 6 pt
 6

1 3.42.9 Ongoing Development and Improvement of Monitoring Program 

2 Elements 

3 

4 A key failing of the historical monitoring program has been to make a variety of changes in trend 

5 monitoring methods without continuing parallel sampling using old methods; the use of old and new 

6 methods in parallel allows scientists to cross calibrate trend indicators. Parallel sampling efforts are 

7 especially important when evaluating new noninvasive sampling methods or changes in sampling efforts 

8 like those proposed to reduce the cost of humpback chub sampling. 

9 

10 New and innovative approaches are constantly being found as development of individual monitoring 

11 protocols proceeds. The GCMRC believes that long-term monitoring protocols should continue to 

12 evaluate new and improved methods when available and as appropriate through time. Additionally, the 

13 role of the PEP is to provide periodic reviews, with panels being convened for the various projects at 

14 about 5-year intervals or as needed. Project budgets should ideally be increased annually by 5 percent to 

15 enable the projects to continue evaluating new methods and monitoring instruments and to cover periodic 

16 independent reviews. 

17 

18 Besides requiring sufficient ongoing funds, any evaluation of new methods must be systematic such that 

19 data collected remain fully comparable through time, including comparing newly proposed methods to 

20 existing methods. Changes in data collection and sampling design that cause “disconnects” in long-term 

21 data streams are to be avoided. New methods will be evaluated only as previous data collection methods 

22 are continued (parallel sampling) to ensure that cross-calibration of trend indicators is possible. This is 

23 particularly important when new methods are proposed with the intention of reducing costs—an 

24 inevitable concern with any long-term monitoring program. 

25 

26 After a period of parallel data collection, full external peer review of the data comparisons, environmental 

27 impacts, and costs will be conducted prior to making any changes in the monitoring approach that would 

28 forego previously established monitoring methods or data. This is one example of the commitment to goal 

29 12 for ensuring a quality adaptive management program for the GCDAMP. 

30 

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

32 programs might include the following activities: 

33 

34 • Remote sensing for riparian sediment and vegetation resources 

35 • Remote sensing for evaluation of fine-scale and longitudinal thermal regimes 

36 • Use of automatic counting systems (for example, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in the 

37 Little Colorado River) 

38 • Dissolved oxygen (DO) meters to measure diurnal and seasonal changes as a measure of 

39 ecosystem function 

40 • Use of acoustic methods for assessing fish distributions and longitudinal densities 

41 • Estimation of food base drift densities with acoustic methods 

42 • Use of ground-based, oblique LiDAR for detecting changes in archaeological sites and sediment 

43 deposits 

44 • Use of side-scan sonar and multi-beam acoustic backscattering data to map channel bed 

45 substrates 

46 • Use of airborne water-penetrating LiDAR (green lasers) to map channel bed topography 
 7

1 • Use of other airborne digital sensors at higher altitudes that reduce over-flight intrusiveness

2 

3 2.10 Implementation Timelines

4 The four-step approach to developing core monitoring protocols has been developed by GCMRC in order 

5 to meet the diverse information needs of GCDAMP stakeholders using a scientifically defensible, peer6 reviewed process. Although sufficient science has been completed to define some of the required long7 term monitoring methods for fine-sediment mass balance, terrestrial vegetation, and monitoring native 

8 and nonnative fishes, several other areas of monitoring have not yet been completely resolved. Areas of 

9 monitoring where research and development on monitoring are still underway and for which PEPs are 

10 planned between fiscal years 2009 and 2015 include the following subject areas:

11 • aquatic food web and downstream water quality (nutrient mass balance and trophic linkages),

12 • cultural resources and archaeological sites,

13 • Lake Powell water quality,

14 • campsites and recreation, and

15 • socioeconomics.

16 The protocol evaluation process will initially be focused on ongoing monitoring projects that have 

17 undergone one or more PEP evaluations and have been piloted, independently peer reviewed, and 

18 implemented for one to several years using methods deemed by the PEPs as adequate and appropriate for 

19 long-term monitoring projects in this category. Other projects that are currently in various stages of 

20 research and development will be brought forward for review over the course of the next 5 years with the 

21 goal of having a fully developed core monitoring program in place by FY2015. The proposed schedule 

22 for undertaking core monitoring reviews of all projects is summarized in table 3.

23 

24 Projects that are approved for core monitoring status will receive first consideration for funding each year 

25 and will not undergo the same annual competitive review as other projects. However, core monitoring 

26 projects will be reviewed during the development of the GCMRC annual or biennial work plan to 

27 incorporate new information, findings, and monitoring techniques that may improve their effectiveness. 

28 After FY2015, a more comprehensive review of core monitoring projects will be conducted at 5-year 

29 intervals.

30 

31 
 8

1 Table 3. 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 FY07/09 FY10 FY11

4 Lees Ferry 

trout

FY00 FY01–06 FY09

FY07

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–

09**

FY11** FY11* FY11*

10 Hydropower N/A FY07 FY10 FY10 FY11

11 Cultural 

Resources

FY00 FY07–12 FY12 FY12 FY12

2 

3 * The GCMRC currently plans to conduct a single protocol evaluation panel to review aquatic food base studies, 

4 downstream water-quality monitoring, and Lake Powell monitoring 

5 ** Specifically campsite monitoring

6 Formatted: Normal
 9

1 

2 
 10

1 Chapter 43. Core Monitoring Proposals by GCDAMP Goal 

2 

3 Prior research and development efforts and results of past PEP reviews, along with general descriptions of 

4 core monitoring activities proposed for each of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

5 (GCDAMP) resources, are summarized in figure 6. All but one of the resources of concern (hydropower) 

6 are considered to be downstream components of the Colorado River ecosystem. However, hydropower is 

7 an important resource of interest to the GCDAMP, and one that is directly tied to daily dam operations. A 

8 summary of the monitoring tasks tied to each goal is provided in table 4, before the descriptions of 

9 individual project proposals. 

10 

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

14 the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The focus of core monitoring is on Record of Decision 

15 operations approved by the Department of the Interior in 1996, including modified low fluctuating 

16 flows, beach/habitat building flows, habitat maintenance flows, and occasionally other types of 

17 experimental dam operations, such as steady flows and alternative fluctuating flows.

18 

19 
 11

1 In each of the monitoring proposals, we distinguish between the signals that monitoring must detect and 

2 the parameters that have been selected for repeated measurement. The “signal” is the response that 

3 monitoring seeks to detect over some specified time scale to track the status and trend of stakeholder4 identified resources (presumably, to be compared with future stated desired conditions that might be 

5 attained through some combination of dam operations and other management actions). The “parameters” 

6 are the specific measurements of particular physical or biological variables that have been selected for 

7 monitoring the associated signal. 

8 

9 In some cases, the relationship between the signal and the parameter is clear. With respect to water 

10 temperature, for example, the signal for monitoring is the annual or longer term trend in mainstem or 

11 nearshore water temperature at various downstream locations. Thus, the parameter for monitoring is 

12 hourly mainstem water temperature at selected representative locations. For sediment, however, the 

13 relationship between the sediment conservation signal and monitoring parameters is more complex. 

14 Although sandbars are of great management interest, it is known that sandbar size is highly variable and 

15 that long-term trends in sandbars are tied to the status of the overall sediment budget. Thus, the key signal 

16 for sediment monitoring is the status of the fine-sediment mass balance. Therefore, monitoring parameters 

17 must be selected to track that signal, in addition to any monitoring of the sandbars and related habitat 

18 resources. 

19 

20 For native fish, the repeated catch data for humpback chub would include length and weight, as well as 

21 location caught and mark-recapture history (related to age and growth rate). However the signal of 

22 interest to managers is the adult population trend of age 4 or older fish, as determined by periodic 

23 estimates of adult abundance derived from the repeated catch data. Recruitment trends for chub and other 

24 native species would presumably also be an important signal to report, as well as annual distributions of 

25 length-frequency data for select species (another means of assessing juvenile recruitment). 

26 

27 The descriptions of proposed core monitoring activities that follow are presented in an order intended to 

28 reflect the bottom-up trophic structure and function of the Colorado River ecosystem, as described in the 

29 previous chapter of this plan. 

30 

31 • Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program (goal 12)

32 • Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem 

33 goals (goal 7)

34 • Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

35 achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals (goal 8)

36 • Protect or improve the aquatic food base so it will support viable populations of desired species at 

37 higher trophic levels (goal 1)

38 • Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove jeopardy from humpback 

39 chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitat (goal 2)

40 • Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the extent 

41 practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish (goal 4)

42 • Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable (goal 3)

43 • Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail (goal 5)

44 • Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including threatened and 

45 endangered species and their critical habitat (goal 6)
 12

1 • Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 

2 ecosystem, within the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystems goals (goal 9)

3 • Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and 

4 advisable, within the framework of the adaptive management ecosystem goals (goal 10)

5 • Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, 

6 present, and future generations (goal 11)

7 

8 Understanding the proposed approach to goal 12 requires some additional explanation because it has both 

9 global and specific elements. First, this goal encompasses many elements of administering and managing 

10 the several varied science programs of the GCMRC, such as Physical/Modeling, Biology, Sociocultural, 

11 Logistics, and DASA (data management and GIS support). In addition, there is also the oversight 

12 provided by the chief and associated staff in managing budgets and programs, facilitating interactions 

13 with stakeholders and policymakers, and ensuring that appropriate levels of external peer review and 

14 fundamental science practices are consistently followed. Second, the GCMRC, through focused activities 

15 led by the DASA program, commits to providing quadrennial airborne overflights of the entire Colorado 

16 River ecosystem to provide systemwide data on terrestrial resources (see goal 12 remote sensing project 

17 description for details below). These periodic overflights are scheduled in coordination with dam 

18 operations at consistently similar, relatively low steady flows to ensure that change detection analyses 

19 conducted by various users are comparative over time—a major emphasis of the monitoring program. The 

20 overflights are a foundational component of the long-term monitoring program and are intended to 

21 provide data pertaining to several resource goals, such as sediment, recreation, cultural resources, fish, 

22 and riparian vegetation. The dual elements of goal 12 are segregated on this basis, as shown in table 4. 

23 

24 Because information is still required to reliably define the monitoring methods and associated costs (see 

25 chapter 5 for budgets) for the above resource areas, description of the entire suite of activities required for 

26 the long-term monitoring program and associated costs in this draft plan are estimates. Nevertheless these 

27 cost estimates will be useful in long-term budget planning for the GCDAMP to ensure that adequate 

28 resources are available for core monitoring..

29 

30 Development of GCMRC core monitoring projects generally follows a similar phased approach. An 

31 expanded version of this process is outlined in table 2. The process depicted in table 2 will be used to 

32 guide development and implementation of all core monitoring projects described in chapter 3.

33 

34 

35 Table 2. Programmatic approach used by GCMRC to guide development and implementation 

36 of the Core Monitoring Program for the GCDAMP (after Palmer and Landis, 2002; Turner and 

37 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

Monitoring design

Measurement and analysis protocols 

(SOPs)

Quality Assurance Plan

Develop Data Management Plan 

Peer review by internal staff

Independent peer review

NPS staff review (for permitting)
 13

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

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 
1 Table 4. Summary of proposed focus, scope, and parameters for core monitoring (to be determined more precisely after completing 

2 core monitoring information workshops and a final protocol evaluation panel [PEP] technical review) by Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive3 Management Program (GCDAMP) goal. Note that the focus, geographic scope, parameters, and frequency may refer to a future time 4 when the core monitoring project has been finalized (as described in chapter 2), and additional research and development is not5 required.6 

GCDAMP goal Focus Geographic scope Parameters Frequency

1. Aquatic food availability1a. Aquatic food base Total organic carbon budget Glen Canyon Dam 

(GCD) to Pearce Ferry

Primary production, tributary inputs

Annually 

1b. Diet, density, and predation

Invertebrate production GCD to Pearce Ferry Biomass and density of 

dominant taxa

2. Native fishes2a. 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

Three times annually

2d. Parasites and disease

Evaluate parasites and diseases that may negatively impact native fishes

GCD to Diamond Creek Infection rates and densities Biannually

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

Seasonally

5. Kanab ambersnail (KAS)5a. KAS population Snail and egg abundance Vaseys Paradise Annually
15

GCDAMP goal Focus Geographic scope Parameters Frequency

5b. KAS habitat Area and vegetation types 

(quality)

Vaseys Paradise Annually

6. Riparian and spring communities

Discerning impacts of dam operations on vegetation

GCD to Diamond Creek Vegetation communities: 

species composition, density, and distribution 

Annual sampling with 5-year mapping updates

7. Lake Powell quality of water

Lake Powell water-quality parameters

Lake Powell Temperature, conductance, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, oxidation-reduction potential, turbidity 

Quarterly

7. Downstream discharge and quality of water7a. Discharge Water discharge and stage in 

the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE)

GCD to Diamond Creek Surface water records (stage 

and discharge)

15 minutes

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 minutes

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 minutes for dissolved oxygen, four times annually at the Lees Ferry gaging station and seven times annually at the gaging station above Diamond Creek 

7d. Temperature Water temperature through 

the CRE

GCD to Diamond Creek Degrees Celsius (°C) 15 minutes to 

hourly
16

GCDAMP goal Focus Geographic scope Parameters Frequency

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

Annual to every 5 years (depending on survey; higherelevation sandbar surveys may occur more frequently than those including bathymetry and grain size)

9. Recreational Experience9a. Campsites Area, quality, and 

distribution

Campable area at longterm sandbars and remotely sensed data elsewhere; AAB sites 

Campable area above and below active fluctuating flow range

Annually

9b. Experience quality

Recreational attribute tradeoffs Full suite of attributes contributing to recreational 

experience

Every 5 years

10. Hydropower10.1 Power generation and costs

Kilowatts and costs GCD Hourly generation capacity, 

replacement market values 

Hourly and daily

11. Cultural Resources11a. Archaeological sites

Sample of sites in CRE Erosion rates, resource 

condition

Biannually

11b. TCPs (Traditional Cultural Properties)and tribally valued resources

Selected sites in CRE Annually
17

GCDAMP goal Focus Geographic scope Parameters Frequency

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

Annually

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

Quadrennially

1 
18

Summary 

Most of the monitoring projects described above—such as the downstream quality of water, suspended-sediment 

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. 

Formatted: Left: 57.6 pt, Right: 57.6 pt, Top:

 36 pt, Bottom: 36 pt, Section start: New page,

Not Different first page header
19

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will 

support viable populations of desired species at higher trophic 

levels 

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. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs
20

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 full-river 

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. 

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. 

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 
21

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 ecosystem 

metabolism, invertebrate secondary production, trophic basis of production of the macroinvertebrate primary 

consumers, and carbon flow to fish. We are attempting to measure whole-stream 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; Rosi-Marshall 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. 
22

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 

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 age-structured 

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. 

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 
23

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 (> 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. 

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. 

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 
24

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. 

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 peer-reviewed 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 PEP recommendations, then the GCDAMP will return to fish 

monitoring protocols implemented in 2009 and 2010. 

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 
25

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. 

Temporal Scope 

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. 
26

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 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. 

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 
27

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 oar-supported 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. 

Annual Assessment of the Overall LCR Humpback Chub Population Abundance and Recruitment

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. 
28

Goal 3: Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible 

and advisable 

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. 

Core Monitoring Information Needs 

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 
29

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. 

Methods

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. 
30

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 

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 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. 
31

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. 
32

Methods 

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. 
33

Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab 

Ambersnail 

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. 

Summary of Previous Work 

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). 
34

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 incorporates 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. 

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 
35

limited habitat, no matter its legal status. The GCDAMP may also choose to contribute to the protection of this 

limited resource. 
36

Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring 

communities, including threatened and endangered species and 

their critical habitat

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. 

Arthropods and Birds 

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 
37

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 ground-dwelling 

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 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). 

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 
38

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). 

Methods 

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 highflow 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. 
39

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 grounddwelling 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 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. 

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. 
40

Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics 

to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

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 high flows from GCD to redistribute sediment 

from the channel to build sandbars at higher elevations in the eddies and on the channel margins. 

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 
41

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. 

Summary of Previous Work 

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. 
42

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 suspended-sediment 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 suspended-sediment 

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 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. 

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. 
43

Figure 7. Monthly and 

quarterly survey locations for quality of water monitoring in Lake Powell.

Lake Powell Water Quality 

Monitoring Locations

•Monthly forebay surveys

•Quarterly reservoir-wide surveys

•25-30 stations

•Profiles

•Major Ions - Nutrients

•Chlorophyll - Plankton

L ong -term station
44

Colorado River Downstream from Lake Powell 

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). Sedimenttransport 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. 

UMC

LMC

EGC

CGC

WGC

Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

Sediment budget reach

UMC – upper Marble Canyon

LMC – lower Marble Canyon

EGC – eastern Grand Canyon

CGC – central Grand Canyon

WGC – western Grand Canyon

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.
45

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the 

main channel and along shorelines to achieve the GCDAMP 

ecosystem goals 

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 high-elevation 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. Sandbars in and along the Colorado 

River were an integral part of the natural riverscape in Grand Canyon National Park, and are important for 

riparian habitat, protection of archaeological sites, recreation, and native fish habitat (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. 

Summary of Previous Work 

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, 
46

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. 

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. 
47

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). 

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. 

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 groundbased 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 
48

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 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. 
49

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 

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, aerial digital imagery analysis, 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 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 important biophysical campsite attributes include 

quiet stable mooring conditions for boats and relatively easy access from the shoreline to the camp. 

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 
50

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 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. 

Figure 9 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 

BR (Dam Releases), 

NPS (Launch Schedules, etc.) 

AZGF (Fishing Regulation) 

2. Unique Characteristics of Glen & Grand 

Canyon (e.g. geology) 

3. Recreation Conditions: (Physical, Biological, Social and Management) 

(e.g. flows, beach size, camp shading, and number of launches) 

4. Trip Attributes 

(e.g. rate of travel, length of trip, 

size & number of rapids, 

encounters with other groups, 

discretionary time, safety) 

5. Visitor Evaluations of 

Recreation Conditions and 

Trip Attributes 
51

Figure 9. A conceptual model of river recreation to guide monitoring.
52

Other primary PEP recommendations included the following tasks: 

• Refine campsite measurement protocols 

• Develop a GIS-base atlas to track systemwide campsite changes and changes in camp distribution 

through time 

• Integrate Adopt-A-Beach images and other photographic records into the future campsite atlas and 

monitoring program 

• Undertake a focused research project to identify the relative importance of flows and various flowrelated 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. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

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. 
53

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 

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 only infrequently (once every 5 or 10 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 re-institute 

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. 

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.) 

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. Also in FY2011, GCMRC proposes to host another PEP focused 

exclusively on the campsite monitoring elements of the program, with the intent of having a core monitoring 

program for campsites in place by the end of FY2011. 
54

Goal 10: Maintain power production capacity and energy 

generation, and increase where feasible and advisable, within 

the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

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 and annually and is available through WAPA-CRSP, but is not publically 

available. Descriptions of these monitored parameters are described in table 5. 
55

Table 5. 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 Parameter

s Methods Location(s) Frequency 

Accura

cy and 

precisio

n

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 

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 CRSPMontrose 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). 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

Geographic Scope

The monitoring project encompasses Glen Canyon Dam. 
56

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. 
57

Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources 

for the inspiration and benefit of past, present, and future 

generations 

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 overland-flow 

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 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. 
58

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). 

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 tribe-specific approaches 
59

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. 

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 of surface changes occurring in response to effects of dam operations 

(Collins and others, 2009; Draut and others, in prep.). 

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 
60

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. 

Goal 12: Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and 

adaptive management program 

(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 corridor-wide 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. 
61

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. 

Sediment Storage 

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 low-velocity 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: 
62

• 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). 

• Determine and track the size, frequency, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage level 

in Glen and Grand Canyons (goal 9). 

• 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 remote-sensing 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 
63

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. 

Summary of Monitoring Project 

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. 
64

Dual-laser Bathymetric/Terrestrial LiDAR 

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. 
65

Chapter 54. Data Management, Quality Assurance, and Reporting 

54.1 Introduction 

Reporting, data analysis, modeling, synthesis, and maintaining the integrity of data collected in GCDAMPsponsored 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. 

54.2 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. 10). 

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 

 
66

Figure 10. Data management roles and responsibilities overview.

Data Management Overview 

Roles and Responsibilities

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
67

Roles of DASA staff: 

• 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 

54.3 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. 

45.4 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 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. 
68

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. 

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. 

54.5 Electronic Data Repository 

GCMRC maintains an electronic data repository for archiving and serving project data. Repository workflows 

are illustrated in figure 11. 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 
69

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 formations, etc.). 

Advanced spatial analysis in support of GCMRC monitoring projects include the following: 

• 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, in-house 

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. 
70

Figure 11. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Data Acquisition, Storage, and 

Analysis program’s electronic data repository workflow.

DASA Electronic Data Repository 

Data Management Workflow

Data 

Preservation 

Tape 

Backups 

Archive 

Stable Media 

Data 

Storage 

Oracle 

Database

GCMRC 

File Server 

Data 

Access 

ESRI 

ArcGIS Server GCMRC 

Web Server 

Data 

Acquisition 

ESRI 

Arc 

Catalog

DASA Data 

Input/Validation 

Software

GCMRC 

‘Products’ 

Application 

Spatial GIS 

Data and 

Imagery

NonSpatial 

Tabular

Final 

Reports 

GIS

RmtSensingCor

Data ArchivistDB Coordinator
71

54.6 Analysis and Modeling 

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 multiagency effort has resulted in a more reliable database for humpback chub and other species assessments. 

54.7 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 mid1960s to present (Vernieu, 2009). 

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 
72

to follow similar data publication procedures for non-QW type data collected as part of its core monitoring 

program below the dam. 

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 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 
73

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.
74

Chapter 5. Management Strategy, Staffing and Budget to Support 

Core Monitoring

Introduction

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” 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.

The goal of this chapter is to outline the strategy for administration of the core monitoring 

program outlined in this plan and to identify estimated annual costs and GCMRC staff needs 

for implementation of the program. Cost estimates also include ongoing support for 

management of monitoring data and making the data and related interpretive reports and fact 

sheets accessible to managers, scientists, and the public. Distribution of these critical 

products shall be accomplished primarily through the GCMRC and USGS Web sites, but also 

through the various program managers and the outreach coordinator position at the 

Southwest Biological Science Center in Flagstaff, Ariz. As previously mentioned, the projected 

costs also include an additional 5 percent for ongoing research and evaluation of new and 

innovative monitoring methods intended to promote a quality program aimed at controlling 

costs and minimizing impacts to the wilderness setting of Grand Canyon National Park.

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 implement and/or oversee 

implementation of all aspects of core monitoring as defined previously in table 2. However, 

this plan also recognizes that several land and resources management agencies, including the 

NPS, USFWS, AZGFD, and the Tribes, have statutory or regulatory responsibilities for longterm management of resources in Grand Canyon. In addition, the USGS, the parent 

organization of GCMRC, includes many leading experts in river science. Collectively, these 

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Indent: Left: 0 pt,

Right: 0 pt, Don't adjust space between Latin

and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text
75

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. 

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 should 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.

GCMRC Staffing Requirements

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). The former requires staff to implement or oversee monitoring 

activities, provide training to staff and cooperators, and report the results in a timely manner. 

The latter requires higher level researchers to develop and test new technologies and 

monitoring processes. Some shifting in GCMRC staffing will be needed as the program moves 

from an R&D phase into 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 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)

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Line spacing: single,

Adjust space between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Space Before: 0 pt,

After: 0 pt, No bullets or numbering, Adjust

space between Asian text and numbers
76

• 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) 

Information Outreach

The role of outreach coordinator is covered by a full-time position in the Southwest Biological 

Science Center—the regional USGS center where GCMRC is located. The various science 

program managers, as well as 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 meetings) and will be done to a greater degree in the future through 

WEBEX, etc. Regarding monitoring information, the DASA program manager is the primary 

contact for providing technical assistance related to data access.

The estimated total staffing need to support full implementation of the GCMP is approximately

26 full-time equivalent positions within the GCRMC. Administrative and general IT/computer 

support, as well as public outreach coordination with the public and management 

stakeholders would be provided through the USGS, SBSC, Western Region of the Biological 

Resources Discipline. 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.

Logistics and Permitting

The GCMRC provides complete logistical support for 35–50 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 the RCS staff work together to 

generate a draft schedule of trips for the fiscal year. The schedule includes launch and takeout 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.

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Heading 1, Adjust space between

Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Heading 1, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text
77

When feasible and practical, multiple monitoring projects may 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 better integrating monitoring 

will continue, including input from the various project chiefs and the logistics program 

manager as to the feasibility of further combining trips and activities.

Core Monitoring Program Costs

A variety of sources have been used to estimate the annual costs of core monitoring activities, as shown in 

table 6. 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. However the 

other nine monitoring projects are associated with only “ballpark” estimates because their associated 

R&D and PEP review phases are not yet completed. 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).

In recent annual work plans, 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. 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.”

Where possible, costs shown in table 6 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 6) 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.

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1
78

Table 6. 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

GCMRC 

/ USGS 

other 

costs

Outsou

(condu

outside

USGS)

1 Food Web 392,847 68,180 324,667 281,667 30,000 13,000 —

2 Native Fish 1,474,608 157,975 1,316,633 226,746 233,000 62,000 794,887 

3 Extirpated Species — — — — — — —

4 Rainbow Trout 160,328 22,897 137,431 82,431 15,000 — 40,000 

5 Springs / KAS 127,555 19,855 107,700 84,178 5,000 — 18,522 

6 Riparian Vegetation 268,371 40,416 227,955 132,955 30,000 15,000 50,000 

7a Quality of Water—Lake 

Powell

288,301 47,448 240,853 173,853 — 46,000 21,000 

7b Quality of Water—

Downstream including 

Suspended Sediment 

Transport and Mass 

Balance

1,056,672* 183,389 873,283 337,624 62,593 473,066 —

8 Sediment 758,123* 111,685 646,438 377,601 62,622 44,802 161,413 

9 Recreation 231,920 33,781 198,139 134,639 8,000 3,000 52,500 

10 Hydropower 39,193 6,802 32,391 32,391 — — —

11 Cultural 607,798 104,253 503,545 186,545 60,000 247,000 10,000 

12a Remote Sensing & Change 

Analysis

791,562 90,181 701,381 232,823 40,000 45,530 383,028 

12b Program Management & 

Overview

160,492 27,854 132,638 132,638 

TOTALS 6,357,771 914,717 5,443,054 2,416,091 546,215 949,398 1,531,350 

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't keep with next,

Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text
79

* The estimated annual cost for monitoring is based on the FY2010–11 work plan and budget where the project already exists and

been described and proposed as a core monitoring effort following completion of Protocol Evaluation Panel review and 

recommendations to the TWG. All others remain in the R&D phase pending final review and recommendations to the TWG.

Formatted: Heading 1

Formatted: Heading 1, Space Before: 0 pt,

Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Heading 1
 80

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. 
 81

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.). 
 82

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. 
 83

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. 

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. 
 84

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. 

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. 
 85

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. 

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. 
 86

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. 

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. 
 87

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. 

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 
 88

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. 

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. 
 89

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. 

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. 
 90

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 

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 
 91

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, 

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. 
 92

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 

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. 
93

Appendix A: Core Monitoring Information NeedsTable A-1. Original AMP goals and Core Monitoring Information Needs, as modified and ranked by the 2005 Science Planning Group (SPG) participants. Column 1 lists original wording of CMINS under each goal. Column 2 indicates whether and how the CMIN was modified by the SPG. Column 3 includes the revised wording of the CMINS, as modified by the SPG, and Column 4 shows how SPG managers ranked the importance of the 12 goals and prioritized the revised CMINs within each goal.

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels.

Rank = 4

1) CMIN 1.1.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary producers between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime. 

Combined CMINs 1.1.1 and 1.3.1

1) CMIN 1.1.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary producers below Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Priority 1

2) CMIN 1.2.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic invertebrates in the reach between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Combined CMINs1.2.1 and 1.4.1

2) CMIN 1.2.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic invertebrates below Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Priority 1

3) CMIN 1.3.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary producers in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River. 

DELETED (combined w/ CMIN 1.1.1)
94

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

4) CMIN 1.4.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic invertebrates in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

DELETED (combined w/ CMIN 1.2.1)

5) CMIN 1.5.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of drift in the Colorado River ecosystem.

MODIFIED. 3) CMIN 1.5.1 Determine and track the 

composition and bio-mass of drift in the Colorado River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Priority 2

Goal 2: 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.

Rank = 1

1) CMIN 2.1.1 Determine and track year class strength of humpback chub between 51 – 150 mm in the LCR and the mainstem.

MODIFIED (for LCR only and combined w/ CMIN 2.1.2)

1) CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance and distribution of humpback chub in the LCR.

Priority 2

2) CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track abundance and distribution of all size classes of humpback chub in the LCR and the mainstem.

MODIFIED (for mainstem only and combined w/ CMIN 2.1.1). Mainstem monitoring requires R& D effort.

2) CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance and distribution of humpback chub in the mainstem.

Priority 1

3) CMIN 2.3.1 Determine and track the parasite loads on humpback chub and other native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Currently an R & D effort. Will require 2-3 yrs to complete.

3) CMIN 2.3.1 Determine and track the parasite loads on humpback chub and other native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Priority 3
95

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

4) CMIN 2.3.2 Determine and track status and trends in the condition (Kn or Wr) of humpback chub and other native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado River ecosystem

This CMIN is not being addressed because of handling stress issue. R & D?

5) CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of non-native predatory fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem and their impacts on native fish. 

MODIFIED. Need R&D to improve tracking warm water abundance and dist.

4) CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of non-native predatory fish species in the Colorado River.

Priority 4

6) CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

NO CHANGE 5) CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the abundance 

and distribution of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Priority 5

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

NO CHANGE(No CMINS identified)

Rank = 12

Goal 4: 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.

Rank = 11

1) CMIN 4.1.1 Determine annual population estimates for age II+ rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

NO CHANGE 1) CMIN 4.1.1 Determine annual population 

estimates for age II+ rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

Priority 1

2) CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

NO CHANGE 2) CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual proportional 

stock density of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

Priority 3

3) CMIN 4.1.3 Determine annual rainbow trout growth rate in the Lees Ferry reach. 

DELETED (combined w/ 4.1.4)

4) CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual standard condition (Kn) and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

Combined with CMIN 4.1.3

3) CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual growth rate, standard condition (Kn), and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

Priority 2
96

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

5) CMIN 4.1.5 Determine if whirling disease is present in the Lees Ferry reach. Determine annual incidence and relative infestation of trout nematodes in rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

DELETED. This is a research question.

6) CMIN 4.1.6 Determine quantity and quality of spawning habitat for rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach as measured at 5-year intervals. 

NOT CORE MONITORING? DELETED?

7) CMIN 4.1.7 Determine annual percentage of naturally recruited rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

DELETED. No longer necessary as all RB are recruited naturally.

Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab amber snail.

Rank = 8

1) 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). 

NO CHANGE. 1) 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). 

Priority 1

2) CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size and composition of the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise. 

NO CHANGE. 2) CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size and 

composition of the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise.

Priority 2

Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.

Rank = 5

1) CMIN 6.1.1 Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

NO CHANGE 1) CMIN 6.1.1 Determine and track the 

abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

Priority 1
97

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

2) CMIN 6.2.1 Determine and track the patch number, patch distribution, composition and area of the NHWZ community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

Combined w/ CMINs 6.3.1 and 6.4.1

2) CMIN 6.2.1 Determine and track the patch number, patch distribution, composition and area of the NHWZ, OHWZ, and sand beach communities as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

Priority 3

3) CMIN 6.3.1 Determine and track the abundance, composition and distribution of the OHWZ community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

DELETED (Combined w/ CMIN 6.2.1

4) CMIN 6.4.1 Determine and track composition, abundance, and distribution of the sand beach community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

DELETED. (Combined w/ CMIN 6.2.1)

5) CMIN 6.5.1 Determine and track the distribution and abundance of non-native species in the Colorado River ecosystem as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

NO CHANGE. 3) CMIN 6.5.1 Determine and track the 

distribution and abundance of non-native species in the Colorado River ecosystem as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

Priority 4

6) CMIN 6.6.1 Determine and track the composition, abundance, and distribution of seep and spring communities as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

NO CHANGE. 4) CMIN 6.6.1 Determine and track the 

composition, abundance, and distribution of seep and spring communities as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

Priority 2

7) CMIN 6.7.1 Determine and track the abundance, distribution, and reproductive success of southwestern willow flycatcher in the Colorado River ecosystem?

DELETED. This is a regulatory activity.
98

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the adaptive management program ecosystem goals.

Rank = 3

1) CMIN 7.1.1 Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as appropriate), backwaters, and near-shore areas throughout the Colorado River ecosystem.

MODIFIED slightly

1) CMIN 7.1.1 Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as appropriate, temperature only in mainstem and LCR), backwaters, and near-shore areas throughout the Colorado River ecosystem.

Priority 2 

2) CMIN 7.1.2 Determine and track LCR discharge near mouth (below springs). 

MODIFIED slightly

2) CMIN 7.1.2 Determine and track LCR discharge and temperature near mouth (below springs).

Priority 4 

3) CMIN 7.2.1 Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, water temperature, conductivity, DO, pH, (decide below whether selenium is important) changes in the mainstem throughout the Colorado River ecosystem?

MODIFIED slightly

3) CMIN 7.2.1 Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, conductivity, DO, and pH, (decide below whether selenium is important) changes in the mainstem throughout the Colorado River ecosystem?

Priority 3

4) CMIN 7.3.1 What are the status and trends of water quality releases from Glen Canyon Dam?

DELETED. Already included in CMIN 7.2.1

5) CMIN 7.4.1 Determine and track releases from Glen Canyon Dam under all operating conditions. 

DELETED. (Combined w/ 7.4.2)

6) CMIN 7.4.2 Determine and track flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions.

MODIFIED slightly

4) CMIN 7.4.2 Determine and track flow releases (gage data and SCADA data; time interval still TBD) from Glen Canyon Dam, under all operating conditions, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions. (parameters are upramp and downramp rates, volume, daily minimum and max)

Priority 1 
99

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve the adaptive management program ecosystem goals.

Ranked = 6

1) CMIN 8.1.1 Determine and track the biennial fine-sediment, volume, and grain-size changes below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach.

MODIFIED (combined w/ 8.3.1)

1) CMIN 8.1.1 Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume and grainsize changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach.

Priority 4 

2) CMIN 8.1.2 What are the monthly sand and silt/clay –export volumes and grainsize characteristics, by reach, as measured at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations?

NO CHANGE? 2) CMIN 8.1.2 What are the monthly sand and 

silt/clay –export volumes and grain-size characteristics, by reach, as measured at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations?

Priority 3 

3) 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?

NO CHANGE? 3) 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?

Priority 1 

4) CMIN 8.2.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and grainsize changes outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach?

MODIFIED(combined w/ 8.4.1)

4) CMIN 8.2.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes within and outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach.

Priority 2 

5) CMIN 8.3.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and grainsize changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach?

DELETED (combined w/ 8.1.1)

6) CMIN 8.4.1 Track, as appropriate, the annual sandbar area, volume and grainsize changes within eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach?

DELETED (combined w/ 8.2.1)
100

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

7) CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and grainsize changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach.

NO CHANGE.This is core IN for terrestrial resources, campsites, arch sites.

5) CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach.

Priority 5 

8) CMIN 8.6.1 Determine and track the change in coarse sediment abundance and distribution.

NO CHANGE?

Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreation experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of the adaptive management program ecosystem goals.

Rank = 7

1) CMIN 9.1.1 Determine and track the change in recreational quality, opportunities and use, impacts, and perceptions of users in the Colorado River Ecosystem.

MODIFIED (incorporates 9.1.3)

1) 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.

Priority 2 

2) CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of river-related use patterns.

NO CHANGE 2) CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the frequency 

and scheduling of river-related use patterns.

Priority 4 

3) CMIN 9.1.3 Determine and track the level of satisfaction for river-related recreational opportunities in the Colorado River ecosystem.

DELETED (Combined w/ 9.1.1)

4) CMIN 9.1.4 Determine and track the economic benefits of river related recreational opportunities.

DELETED. Not a monitoring activity?

5) CMIN 9.2.1 Determine and track the change in quality and range of opportunities in consideration of visitor safety, and the inherent risk of riverrelated recreational activities. 

DELETED. Is already covered w/in 9.1.1.
101

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

6) CMIN 9.2.2 Determine and track accident rates for visitors participating in river-related activities including causes and location (that is, on-river or off-river), equipment type, operator experience, and other factors of these accidents in the Colorado River ecosystem.

NO CHANGE 3) CMIN 9.2.2 Determine and track accident rates 

for visitors participating in river-related activities including causes and location (that is, on-river or off-river), equipment type, operator experience, and other factors of these accidents in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Priority 5 

7) CMIN 9.3.1 Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons.

NO CHANGE 4) CMIN 9.3.1 Determine and track the size, 

quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons.

Priority 1 

8) CMIN 9.3.2 Determine and track the effects Record of Decision operations on the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches in the Colorado River ecosystem.

DELETED because it is captured in 9.3.1 and otherwise is effects monitoring

9) CMIN 9.4.1 Determine and track the effects of Record of Decision operations on elements of wilderness experience specific to the Colorado River ecosystem.

DELETED because it is captured under 9.1.1 and otherwise is effects monitoring

10) CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of research and monitoring activity in Glen and Grand Canyons.

NO CHANGE. 5) CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency 

and scheduling of research and monitoring activity in Glen and Grand Canyons.

Priority 3 

Goal 10: Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and advisable, within the framework of the adaptive management ecosystem goals.

Rank = 9
102

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

1) CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and track the effects on marketable capacity and energy of implementation of Record of Decision components (daily fluctuation limit, upramp and downramp limits, list components, maximum flow limit of 25,000 cfs, minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs).

MODIFIED. This is the key CMIN for hydropower.

1) 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 25,000 cfs, minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs).

Priority 1 

2) CMIN 10.2.1 Determine the effects of reserve group obligations on power.

DELETED. This is about emergency ops and can be evaluated after emergencies occur.

3) CMIN 10.3.1 Determine the full range of effects of Glen Canyon Dam responses to western interconnected electrical system emergencies.

DELETED. This is about emergency ops and can be evaluated after emergencies occur.

4) CMIN 10.4.1 Determine and track the effects on the Colorado River ecosystem and marketable power and energy of maintaining Automatic Generation Control at Glen Canyon Dam.

DELETED. This is a research question.

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

Rank = 2

1) CMIN 11.1.1 Determine the status of historic properties under Record of Decision operations. 

MODIFIED (now split into two CMINs)

1) 11.1.1 Determine 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.2) 11.2.1 Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Priority 1
103

Original goal or CMIN SPG change Revised CMIN wording SPG ranking

(CMINS ranked w/in goal; 

GOALS ranked independently)

2) CMIN 11.1.1a Determine periodically whether the essential physical features are visible enough to convey their significance or retain their information potential.

DELETED. This is captured in the revised CMIN 11.1.1

3) CMIN 11.1.2 Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to historic properties.

DELETED. This is effects of treatment monitoring.

4) CMIN 11.1.3 What are the thresholds for impacts that threaten their integrity and eligibility of historic properties?

DELETED. This is a research question.

5) CMIN 11.1.3a Are the current monitoring programs collecting the necessary information to assess resource integrity?

DELETED. This is research/management/policy question

6) CMIN 11.1.4 How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change at an archaeological site—qualitative, quantitative?

DELETED. This is a research question

7) CMIN 11.2.1 Are the traditionally important resources and locations for each tribe and other groups being affected?

MODIFIED. 3) 11.2.1 Determine the condition of traditionally 

important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and values.

Priority 2

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

Rank = 10

1) CMIN 12.5.1 Determine whether effective two-way communication between AMP participants and individuals outside the program is occurring on a regular basis.

DELETED. This is a research/management question.
104

Appendix A: Core Monitoring Information NeedsTable A-1. Original AMP goals and Core Monitoring Information Needs, as modified and ranked by the 2005 Science Planning Group (SPG) participants. Column 1 lists the ranked GCDAMP Goals from 1 to 12. Column 3 provides the revised wording of the CMINS, as modified by the SPG, and Column 4 shows how SPG managers prioritized the revised CMINs within each goal.

GOAL or 

CMIN

Revised CMIN wording SPG 

Prioritization

GOAL 2

Rank 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.

CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance and distribution of humpback chub in the mainstem. Priority 1CMIN 2.3.1 Determine and track the parasite loads on humpback chub and other native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado 

River ecosystem.

Priority 2

CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of non-native predatory fish species in the Colorado River. Priority 3CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace 

populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Priority 4

GOAL 11

Rank 2

Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, present and future generations.

CMIN 11.1.1 Determine 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.

Priority 1

CMIN 11.2.1 Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the Colorado River ecosystem. Priority 1CMIN 11.2.2 Determine the condition of traditionally important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and values. Priority 2

GOAL 7

Rank 3

Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the adaptive management program ecosystem goals.

CMIN 7.4.2 Determine and track flow releases (gage data and SCADA data; time interval still TBD) from Glen Canyon Dam, under 

all operating conditions, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions. (parameters are upramp and downramp rates, volume, daily minimum and max)

Priority 1 

CMIN 7.1.1 Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as appropriate, temperature only in mainstem 

and LCR), backwaters, and near-shore areas throughout the Colorado River ecosystem.

Priority 2 

CMIN 7.2.1 Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, conductivity, DO, and pH, (decide below whether selenium is 

important) changes in the mainstem throughout the Colorado River ecosystem?

Priority 3

CMIN 7.1.2 Determine and track LCR discharge and temperature near mouth (below springs). Priority 4 

GOAL 1

Rank 4

Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels.

CMIN 1.1.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary producers below Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with 

measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Priority 1
105

GOAL or 

CMIN

Revised CMIN wording SPG 

Prioritization

CMIN 1.2.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic invertebrates below Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with 

measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Priority 1

CMIN 1.5.1 Determine and track the composition and bio-mass of drift in the Colorado River in conjunction with measurements of 

flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

Priority 2

GOAL 6

Rank 5

Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.

CMIN 6.1.1 Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community as measured at 5-year 

or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

Priority 1

CMIN 6.6.1 Determine and track the composition, abundance, and distribution of seep and spring communities as measured at 5-year 

or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

Priority 2

CMIN 6.2.1 Determine and track the patch number, patch distribution, composition and area of the NHWZ, OHWZ, and sand beach 

communities as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

Priority 3

CMIN 6.5.1 Determine and track the distribution and abundance of non-native species in the Colorado River ecosystem as measured 

at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change for the community.

Priority 4

GOAL 8

Rank 6

Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve the 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?

Priority 1

CMIN 8.2.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes within and outside of eddies 

between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach.

Priority 2

CMIN 8.1.2 What are the monthly sand and silt/clay –export volumes and grain-size characteristics, by reach, as measured at Lees 

Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations?

Priority 3

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.

Priority 4

CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. Priority 5CMIN 8.6.1 Determine and track the change in coarse sediment abundance and distribution.

GOAL 9

Rank 7

Maintain or improve the quality of recreation experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within the 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 Grand 

Canyons.

Priority 1

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.

Priority 2

CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of research and monitoring activity in Glen and Grand Canyons. Priority 3CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of river-related use patterns. Priority 4
106

GOAL or 

CMIN

Revised CMIN wording SPG 

Prioritization

CMIN 9.2.2 Determine and track accident rates for visitors participating in river-related activities including causes and location (that 

is, on-river or off-river), equipment type, operator experience, and other factors of these accidents in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Priority 5

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). 

Priority 1

CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size and composition of the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise. Priority 2

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 25,000 cfs, minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs).

Priority 1 

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. Priority 1CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual growth rate, standard condition (Kn), and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. Priority 2CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. Priority 3

GOAL 3

Rank 12

Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable
 107

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 
 108

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 
 109

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). 

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 acience 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 
 110

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 

RINs Research Information Needs

ROD Record of Decision

SINs Synthesis Information Needs
 111

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 
Page 104: [1] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:44:00 AM 

Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Bold 

Page 104: [1] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:44:00 AM 

Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Bold 

Page 104: [1] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:44:00 AM 

Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Bold 

Page 104: [1] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:44:00 AM 

Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Bold 

Page 104: [1] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:44:00 AM 

Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Bold 

Page 104: [2] Change Capron 2/10/2010 11:21:00 AM 

Formatted Table 

Page 104: [3] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:21:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [4] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [5] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:21:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 104: [6] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:22:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [6] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:22:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [7] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [8] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [9] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [10] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [11] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [12] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [13] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [14] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [15] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

P 104 [16] F tt d C 2/10/2010 11 21 00 AM
Page 104: [17] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [18] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:21:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 104: [19] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:22:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [19] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:22:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [20] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [21] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [22] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [23] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [24] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [25] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [26] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [27] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:27:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [28] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [29] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:27:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 104: [30] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:27:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [30] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:27:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [31] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [32] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [33] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [34] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

P 104 [35] F tt d C 2/10/2010 11 29 00 AM
Page 104: [36] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:29:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [37] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [38] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:30:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [39] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:30:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [40] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:30:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 104: [41] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:30:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [42] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:30:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [42] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:30:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 104: [43] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [44] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:32:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [45] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [46] Change Capron 2/10/2010 11:21:00 AM 

Formatted Table 

Page 105: [47] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:32:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [48] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [49] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:32:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [50] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:20:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [51] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:33:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [52] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:33:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [53] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:33:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 105: [54] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:33:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

P 105 [54] F tt d C 2/10/2010 11 33 00 AM
Page 105: [55] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:33:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [55] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:33:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [56] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [57] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [58] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:33:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt 

Page 105: [59] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [60] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [61] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:35:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [62] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:35:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [63] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:35:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 105: [64] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:35:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [64] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:35:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [65] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:35:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [65] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:35:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [66] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [67] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:36:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [68] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [69] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:36:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [70] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [71] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:36:00 AM 

Centered 

P 105 [72] F tt d C 2/10/2010 11 38 00 AM
Page 105: [73] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:36:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [74] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [75] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:36:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [76] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [77] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:36:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [78] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [79] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:37:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [80] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:37:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [81] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:37:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 105: [82] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:37:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [82] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:37:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [83] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:37:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [83] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:37:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 105: [84] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [85] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:39:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [86] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [87] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:39:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [88] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [89] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:39:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 105: [90] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

P 105 [91] F tt d C 2/10/2010 11 39 00 AM
Page 105: [92] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 104: [93] Change Capron 2/10/2010 11:21:00 AM 

Formatted Table 

Page 106: [94] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:39:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [95] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [96] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [97] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [98] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 106: [99] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [99] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [100] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [100] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [101] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [102] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [103] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [104] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [105] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [106] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:41:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [107] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [108] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:41:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 106: [109] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:41:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

P 106 [109] F tt d C 2/10/2010 11 41 00 AM
Page 106: [110] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:41:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [110] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:41:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [111] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [112] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [113] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [114] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [115] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [116] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 106: [117] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [117] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [118] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [118] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [119] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [120] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [121] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [122] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 106: [123] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [123] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [124] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [124] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:42:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

P 106 [125] F tt d C 2/10/2010 11 38 00 AM
Page 106: [126] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [127] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [128] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [129] Change Capron 2/10/2010 11:43:00 AM 

Formatted Table 

Page 106: [130] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:38:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [131] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:43:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [132] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:40:00 AM 

Centered 

Page 106: [133] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:43:00 AM 

Font: Bold 

Page 106: [134] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:43:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [134] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:43:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [135] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:43:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold 

Page 106: [135] Formatted Capron 2/10/2010 11:43:00 AM 

Font: 10 pt, Bold