Core Monitoring Activities 

Core Monitoring: Consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically 

accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific 

questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or 

other circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking 

strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources (Draft GCDAMP Strategic Plan, 

2001). 

The need for a long-term core monitoring plan for the GCDAMP has been identified as a critical 

program need since the inception of the program in 1996. However, completion of a long-term 

core monitoring plan has remained an elusive goal for a variety of reasons. First, the process for 

the systematic development of monitoring programs generally involves the establishment of a 

protocol evaluation panel (PEP) for each key resource area, followed by several years of pilot 

testing of monitoring protocols, then a period of analysis, synthesis, and re-evaluation, 

culminating in the implementation of long-term monitoring protocols. This process was initiated 

in 1998 and is in progress for many elements of the program today (e.g., terrestrial ecosystems, 

archaeological and tribal resources, aquatic food base, recreation, and fisheries). Other factors 

have hindered rapid progress in the development of a core monitoring plan, including: 

• Lack of agreement among GCDAMP stakeholders about scope, purposes, and 

objectives of core monitoring projects under the GCDAMP 

• Lack of agreement among GCDAMP stakeholders and scientists about what defines 

core monitoring as opposed to other kinds of monitoring, such as monitoring effects of 

experimental actions or monitoring the effectiveness of management actions 

• Lack of agreement about the required levels of precision and accuracy in monitoring 

data necessary to achieve program goals 

A Provisional Core Monitoring Plan (PCMP) (Fairley and others, 2005) was drafted by the 

GCMRC in cooperation with a GCDAMP Core Monitoring Team. However, the plan only 

addressed a few highly developed monitoring efforts (so-called “green” projects) and was 

neither formally adopted by the TWG or the AMWG, nor was it finalized. Nevertheless, the 

PCMP represents the best guidance currently available for the development of core monitoring 

projects for FY07–FY11. 

The current monitoring projects associated with various GCDAMP resources will be subjected to 

an evaluation by the GCMRC in cooperation with the TWG. The evaluation of projects for core 

monitoring suitability is critical because the implementation of core monitoring activities has 

significant budget implications for the science program that could limit the flexibility of the 

GCMRC and the GCDAMP to respond to high-priority research needs. Accordingly, all 

monitoring projects considered for core monitoring status will undergo the following technical 

evaluation process for determining core monitoring status: 

 1. General Core Monitoring Proposal: In FY07, the GCMRC will draft a General Core 

Monitoring Proposal that identifies by resource area the general goals, objectives, 

scope, schedule, and funding level for each proposed core monitoring project. The 

proposal will be based on AMWG priorities, currently identified information needs, the 

feasibility of developing monitoring protocols to meet those needs, and other relevant 

information. The proposal will be provided to the TWG for review. 
 2. Information Needs Workshop: Annually, the GCMRC will conduct a TWG workshop to 

refine and formulate recommendations concerning specific management goals, 

information needs, and the scope of all monitoring projects that will be evaluated for core 

monitoring status in a given fiscal year. The workshop will also identify specific questions 

that managers would like to have addressed in the follow-up protocol evaluation panel 

for each resource goal. 

 3. Protocol Evaluation Panel Review: For each resource goal, the GCMRC will convene 

a PEP to evaluate the results of the information needs workshop, review the results of 

past monitoring efforts and relevant research and development activities, and 

recommend future monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the 

monitoring project. 

 4. Core Monitoring Program Reports: Based on the results of the workshop and the PEP 

 evaluation, the GCMRC will prepare a report to the TWG for each project being 

 evaluated for core monitoring status. Core monitoring program reports will provide the 

 TWG sufficient information to evaluate individual programs/projects for core monitoring 

 status. The reports will include the following information: 

• AMWG goal(s) addressed 

• Project title 

• Principal investigator(s) 

• Geographic scope 

• Justification for monitoring effort 

• Project goals, tasks, and schedule by task 

• Key science questions and managers’ information needs addressed 

• Linkage to other resources processes and models 

• Monitoring protocols, including sampling designs, level of data resolution, accuracy 

and precision assessment, etc. 

• Expected outcomes, including outputs by fiscal year, reports, guidelines, models, etc. 

• Costs of project/program by fiscal year 

Those projects approved by the TWG for core monitoring status will receive first consideration 

for funding each year and will not undergo the same annual competitive review as other 

projects. However, core monitoring projects will be reviewed during the development of the 

BWP to incorporate new information, findings, and monitoring techniques that may improve their 

effectiveness. A more comprehensive review of core monitoring projects will be conducted at 5-

year intervals. 

The initial focus of the evaluation process described above will be to evaluate for core 

monitoring status those “green” projects that have undergone a PEP evaluation, have been 

piloted and results peer reviewed, and that have been implemented for one to several years 

using methods deemed adequate for long-term monitoring. Projects in this category and their 

anticipated review schedule include: 

• Downstream surface-water parameters (discharge, stage measurements) and specific 

water-quality parameters related to sediment (e.g., suspended-sediment transport 

measurements and modeling) (FY07) 

• Status of Lees Ferry rainbow trout (FY07) 
• Status of humpback chub in the Little Colorado River (to be reviewed through PEP with 

Colorado River 

 population) (FY08) 

In addition, several monitoring projects that have undergone an initial PEP review have 

subsequently undergone a period of research and development or pilot testing and are now 

ready for a second PEP review before being implemented as part of the long-term core 

monitoring plan. Other projects, such as food base and cultural resources, have only recently 

started their multiyear research and development phase. These projects will be brought forward 

for review over the course of the next 5 years with the goal of having a fully developed core 

monitoring program in place by FY11. The proposed schedule for undertaking core monitoring 

reviews of these projects is as follows: 

• Sand storage monitoring (FY07) 

• Terrestrial ecosystem monitoring (FY07) 

• Status of humpback chub in the mainstem of the Colorado River (to be reviewed through 

PEP with LCR 

 population) (FY08) 

• Integrated quality of water project (Lake Powell and downstream parameters, including 

specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) (FY09) 

• Kanab ambersnail habitat and population monitoring (FY09) 

• Camping beaches monitoring (FY09) 

• Cultural site monitoring (archeological, traditional cultural properties) (FY10) 

• Aquatic food base (FY10–FY11) 

Monitoring of traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and tribal values in the CRE is a component 

of the GCDAMP; however, the GCMRC faces a number of challenges in determining how to 

integrate tribal perspectives into core monitoring. This is in part because of differing perceptions 

about what constitutes appropriate indicators of ecosystem “health” and also because most of 

the tribes have been reluctant to formally identify their TCPs. Furthermore, in many cases a 

tribe’s resource interests are tied to specific, culturally important places in the river corridor, the 

locations of which are considered to be proprietary information. Without a clear articulation of 

the tribes’ needs for monitoring data, it is impossible for the GCMRC to develop monitoring 

projects to meet tribal needs. 

The tribes were funded by the GCDAMP in FY06 to define their monitoring projects and 

associated methods and metrics for evaluating the resources and places of specific tribal 

interest in the CRE. These projects are scheduled to be brought forward to the TWG for review 

and discussion in FY07. If the methods and rationales for these proposed monitoring projects 

are shared with the GCDAMP and subjected to peer review, then they may fit within the 

GCDAMP science program as currently defined. Otherwise, the information derived from the 

tribal monitoring effort may be more appropriately incorporated into the GCDAMP decisionmaking process via ongoing consultation between the tribes, GCDAMP stakeholders, and DOI 

agencies. The GCMRC will describe the tribal monitoring component of the 5-year science 

program with more specificity after the tribal monitoring needs are defined and brought forward 

for TWG review in FY07. 
Core Monitoring Develo

Process

Technical Work Group

April 2, 2007

John Hamill, Chief

GCMRC

Helen Fairley, Socio-Cultural Program 

GCMRC
Overview

• Purpose and background (John• Overview of provisions of the M

• Relationship to CMT report/recommenda

• General Core Monitoring Propo• Information Needs Workshop (H• FY 07 PEPS (Helen)• Core Monitoring Project Report• Discussion and Comments (20 
Background

• Several failed attempts to de

implement a core monitoring 

• Lack of agreement on:

– Purpose, scope, objectives– What constitutes core monitor– Required level of precision or 
Provisional Core Mon

Approach

• Elements of the approach:

– Identified Green, Yellow and R– Criteria for ranking AMP goals– Criteria for prioritizing CMINs– Identified 53 factors for evalua

monitoring data

• Proposed committee process 

implement approach
MRP Provisions

A streamlined approa

Core Monitoring 
Why is a Core Monitoring Pla

• Element of the Grand Canyo

Protection Act

• Fundamental to Adaptive Ma• Core Monitoring R&D is cons

large portion of budget (62%plan

• Need to focus monitoring on 

needs
Basis for MRP Core Monitoring 

• Core Monitoring: Scientifically v

protocols or methods to assess tand trend of priority AMP resour

• Consistent with Provisional Core 

Plan and proposed process–but 

• Refine through an “adaptive man

approach (develop, implement, e

• Tribal monitoring to be addresse

needs are better defined
Schedule for Core Monitoring 

FY 07• Downstream surface water discharge, sta

water (temp, conductivity, and suspended 

• Sand storage monitoring • Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring • Lees Ferry rainbow troutFY 08• Humpback chub in the LCR and Colorado FY 09• Camping beaches • Lake Powell quality of water • Kanab ambersnailFY 10/11• Cultural site (arch sites and TCPs)• Aquatic food base
MRP Core Monitoring Evaluati

1. General Core Monitoring Proposal:

• Based on existing planning documents• Specify by resource area goals, objectives

information needs, scope, priority, schedu

• Review/approval by TWG (FY07)

2. Annual TWG Information Needs Works

• Scope: monitoring projects that will be ev

monitoring status in a given FY

• Refine/formulate specific management obj

monitoring information needs and project s

3. PEP Review

• Independent science panel that recommen

protocols and technical specifications consabove

4. Core Monitoring Project Report to TW

• Scope: Includes sufficient info for TWG to 

projects for core monitoring status
Core Monitoring Re

• Annual project review to inc

new information, findings or techniques. 

• Comprehensive review each 

(including General Core MonPlan). 
INTEGRATED CORE MONITORING P

Kanab Ambersnail

and habitat

numbers 

(5)

Disease/Parasite

(2)

Do

Non-N

Distribut

Archaeological

Site Condition

(11)

Recreation

Experience/

Satisfaction

(9)

Camping

Beaches 

(9)

Distribution Size 

of Sand Bars

(8)

BHBF

Sediment

Trigger?

Adult Humpback

Chub

numbers

(2)

Mainstem flow, 

Temperature,

Sediment, 

Organic Matter

(7)

Lake Powell

Water Quality Dam Operations

Po

Rev

(

R

Num

F

High

AMWG

Priority

(AMP Goal)

Proposed 

treatments

Yes

Erosion 

control
Requested TWG ac

TWG reaffirms its support of tmonitoring approach as descDraft November 14, 2006 MRPrecommends that GCMRC proimplementation of the approa
General Core Monitoring 

This is a programmatic plan that w

the scope of the core monitoring 

– NOT another Provisional Core Moni– Previews where we are heading and 

we plan to get there via R&D, PEPs, Monitoring Reports 

– Organized by AMP goals (including – Plan will be incrementally implemen

modified based on experience, PEP new information 

– Estimates yearly $$$– TWG review (June 2007)
Outline of General C

Monitoring Propos

Introduction: Background, Purpose, Need

and Vision for Future Integration

(Remainder of report organized by AMP 

1. Core monitoring objectives for each AM2. Core Monitoring Information Needs 3. Proposed Geographic scope4. Previous work towards core monitorin5. Proposed implementation schedule6. Linkage to other goals/projects/models7. Data management plan and products (r

models, etc)

8. Estimated cost by fiscal year
Information Needs Wo

• Clarify manager’s priorities for C

Monitoring Information Needs

– Review work of SPG re: CMIN revis– Focus is on resolving which CMINs 

priority for focusing future monitori

– NOT a process to revise AMP Strate

• Solicit manager’s input for FY07 

– Lees Ferry Trout (September 2007)– Terrestrial & Riparian Communities – Socioeconomics (August 2007)
Protocol Evaluation 

• Independent panel of 8-10 sub

experts

• PEP purpose: To review proposed 

monitoring protocols and resulting products and provide recommendGCMRC scientists on ways to impmethods and results in consideratinformation needs, costs, efficiencscientific rigor
Core Monitoring Project 

Purpose: To document prop

monitoring projects in respopriority information needs fo

– Prepared by GCMRC program managers a

input from IN workshop and PEP 

– Will be provided to TWG for review and co– Once revised and recommended by TWG, 

core monitoring plan 

– First report will be for Goal 8 (sediment) du– Other reports will be produced 2-3 months 
Core Monitoring Program 

Report Content1. AMWG Goal2. Project Title3. Principal Investigator (if known)4. Geographic scope5. Justification for monitoring effort6. Project tasks and schedule7. Key science questions, management 

information needs

8. Linkage to other projects/models9. Monitoring protocols including samp

methods, data resolution, accuracy, e

10. Products (reports, models, etc)11. Cost by fiscal year
Requested TWG ac

TWG reaffirms its support of tmonitoring approach as descDraft November 14, 2006 MRPrecommends that GCMRC proimplementation of the approa