Update on Status of Draft Performance Metrics 

for the Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

April 13, 2023 

Helen C. Fairley 

USGS Southwest Biological Science Center, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Presentation Outline 

 Project Overview 

 Stakeholder Reviews 

 Summary of Revised Metrics by Goal 

 Next Steps 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Overview (Purpose and Need) 

 LTEMP defines 11 Goals 

 How do we know if Goals are being achieved? 

 Need to define performance metrics 

 Section 6.1(c) of the LTEMP ROD* 

“The DOI, in consultation with the AMWG, will develop 

monitoring metrics for the goals and objectives using those in 

Appendix C as a starting point.” 

(Note: Appendix C = performance metrics developed by Runge 

et al. (2016) to help select the preferred LTEMP alternative.) 

 FY 21-23 TWP, Reclamation Project C.12 

* Department of Interior, 2016, Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long Term Experimental and 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 2016. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

River Region, Salt Lake City, Utah and National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monitoring & Metrics 

Monitoring & metrics serve a variety of purposes. 

Principal types and reasons for monitoring include: 

 Effectiveness (or Performance) Monitoring 

1. To assess effectiveness of policy, plans, or legislation 

2. To evaluate progress towards achieving management 

objectives or regulatory standards 

 Surveillance Monitoring 

3. To detect incipient trends (“early warnings”) 

4. To determine resource status in order to decide 

appropriate management actions 

 Validation Monitoring 

5. To increase our understanding of resource dynamics 

6. To develop and refine models or predictions 
This Metrics Project 

 Focus is on defining performance metrics for LTEMP 

goals (i.e., Are we achieving the 11 LTEMP Goals?) 

 Specific focus is on defining metrics for tracking 

achievement of LTEMP Goal OUTCOMES 

 For example, while sediment on the riverbed is important to 

monitor because it impacts fish habitat and serves as the 

“savings account” for HFEs, the desired sediment outcome is 

to “increase & retain sediment . . . above average base flow.” 

 Therefore, performance metrics for sediment focus on 

measuring sediment above 8000 cfs (~average base flow) 

 Performance metrics tell us “achieving / achieved” or 

“not achieved” -- not why 
 

LTEMP Goals 

 Most goals focus on specific resource categories, e.g., 

humpback chub, sediment, riparian vegetation 

 Most define a general desired directional trend in 

resource condition but not specific targets, e.g., 

 “Increase and retain fine sediment volume, area, and 

distribution . . . above the elevation of average base flows” 

 “Minimize or reduce the presence and expansion of 

aquatic nonnative invasive species.” 

 Some level of interpretation is required in some cases, 

i.e. “Restore, to the extent practicable, ecological patterns 

and processes within their range of natural variability . . .” 
Multiple External Factors Affect 

LTEMP Goal Outcomes 
LTEMP Performance Metrics: Criteria 

 Reflects the expected performance outcome of each 

LTEMP goal, not the underlying “means objectives” 

 Quantifiable, replicable (metric = measurable) 

 Technically & financially feasible to measure (e.g., 

sustainable to monitor over a long period of time) 

 Relevant to the metrics used to select LTEMP 

preferred alternative 
Draft Reports & TWG Reviews 

 First draft report on metrics sent to TWG June 9, 2022

discussed at June 22022 TWG meeting 

 Reviews on June draft received from AZ, CO, CA, NM, 

TWG chair, and WAPA 

 Draft revised and sent to TWG Oct. 2, 2022; discussed

at Oct. TWG meeting 

 Additional reviews received after Oct. TWG meeting 

from UT, NM, CREDA, WAPA, GCWC, Navajo Nation 

 Draft revised and additional metrics added Dec-Feb. 

March ‘23 draft currently in review by DOI agencies. 

 THANKS to everyone who provided comments!!! 

; 
Summary of Changes since Oct. 2022 

 Goal 1 (archaeological resources): metrics added (3 metrics) 

 Goal 2 (natural processes): 3 new flow metrics added; 

substantial revision of text and graphics (7 metrics total) 

 Goal 3 (Humpback Chub): no major changes (3 metrics) 

 Goal 3 (Hydropower): no major changes (1 metric) 

 Goal 5 (Other Native Fishes): no major changes (5 metrics) 

 Goal 6 (Recreation Experience): no major changes (1 metric) 

 Goal 7 (Sediment): metrics added (5 metrics) 

 Goal 8 (Tribal Values & Resources): no metrics defined 

 Goal 9 (Rainbow Trout Fishery): no major changes (2 metrics)

 Goal 10 (Nonnative Invasive Species): no changes (10 metrics

 Goal 11 (Riparian Vegetation): no major changes (3 metrics) 

Current total of 41 metrics,; 20 are specific to fish. 

) 
 

 

 

 

 

Tribal Resources Goal 

Goal 8. “Maintain the diverse values and resources of 

traditionally associated Tribes along the Colorado River 

corridor through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons.” 

What if this goal instead stated: 

“Maintain the diverse values and resources of all non-tribal 

GCDAMP stakeholders along the Colorado River corridor 

through Glen, Marble, & Grand Canyons.” 

 Could non-tribal stakeholders collectively define how to measure 

maintenance of their diverse values & interests in a few metrics? 

 How can a few metrics adequately capture the many intangible 

values and sense of cultural importance that individual Tribes 

attach to Grand Canyon and the Colorado River? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Appendix: Surveillance Metrics 

(Physical “drivers” of goal outcomes; important 

to monitor but NOT = performance metrics) 

Relevant 

Metric Name Measurement Location(s) Frequency Method Goals 

Daily/monthly/annual releases m3/sec (cfs) GCD, LF, Phantom, DC 15 min increments auto sample All 

Daily range (magnitude of fluctuations) m3/sec (cfs) GCD, LF, Phantom, DC 15 min increments auto sample All 

Water Temperature Degrees C (F) GCD, -8 mi, LF, 5 sed gages 15 min increments auto sample 2,3,5,6,9,10 

Turbidity fnu 6 mainstem sed gages 15 min increments auto sample 2,3,5,6,7,9,10 

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L GCD, -8 mile, LF 15 min increments auto sample 2,3,5,9,10 

Ph unitless GCD, LF monthly grab sample 2,3,5,9,10,11 

Phosphorus (SRP, TDP, TP) mg/L GCD, LF, Paria monthly grab sample 2,3,5,9,10,11 

Nitrogen (TN, NO23, NH4, TDN) mg/L GCD, LF monthly grab sample 2,3,5,9,10,11 

PPFD μmol m-2 Entire Cre- Yard et al. 2,3,5,9,10,11 

Available Sunlight (Canyon shading) s-1 2005 instantaneous modeled 

Sediment mass balance (inputs/export) metric tons 6 mainstem gages 15 min increments auto sample/modeled 1,2,6,7,11 

Weather/climate parameter: Air LF, 11mi, 24.5, 70, 125, 2,6,11 

Temperature Degrees C (F) 223mi 4 min increments auto sample 

Weather/climate parameter: Wind 

intensity km/hr 6 weather stations 4 min increments auto sample 

1,6,7,11 

Weather/ climate parameter: Wind 1,6,7,11 

direction degrees 6 weather stations 4 min increments auto sample 

Weather/climate parameter: 

precip.intensity mm/hr 6 weather stations 4 min increments auto sample 

1,6,7,11 

Weather/climate parameter: 

precip.amount mm/hr 6 weather stations 4 min increments auto sample 

1,6,7,11 

weather/climate parameter: humidity 6 weather stations 4 min increments auto sample 6,11 
Next Steps 

 May 2023: Meet with DOI agencies to review & 

discuss March draft; receive additional input 

 June 2023: GCMRC will revise draft report per 

DOI input and share final draft with TWG 

 Summer-Fall 2023: Pilot “Metrics Dashboard” on 

BOR website 

 July-December 2023: GCMRC staff will work on 

producing and updating actual metrics and 

graphics for presentation at January 2024 ARM 
Questions?