Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Long Term Resource Monitoring Program”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2006

Water-quality, bed-sediment, and biological data (October 2004 through September 2005) and statistical summaries of data for streams in the Upper Clark Fork Basin, Montana

Water, bed sediment, and biota were sampled in streams from Butte to below Missoula as part of a long-term monitoring program, conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to characterize aquatic resources in the upper Clark Fork basin of western Montana. Sampling sites were located on the Clark Fork, six major tributaries, and three smaller tributaries. Water-quality samples were collected periodically at 18 sites during October 2004 through September 2005 (water year 2005). Bed-sediment and biological samples were collected once in August 2005. The primary constituents analyzed were trace elements associated with tailings from historical mining and smelting activities. This report summarizes the results of water-quality, bed-sediment, and biota samples col-lected in water year 2005 and provides statistical summaries of data collected since 1985. Water-quality data for samples collected periodically from streams include concentrations of selected major ions, trace ele-ments, and suspended sediment. Daily values of suspended-sed-iment concentration and suspended-sediment discharge were determined for three sites. Bed-sediment data include trace-ele-ment concentrations in the fine-grained fraction. Bio-logical data include trace-element concentrations in whole-body tissue of aquatic benthic insects. Quality-assurance data are reported for analytical results of water, bed sediment, and biota. Statistical summaries of water-quality, bed-sediment, and biological data are provided for the period of record since 1985 for each site.

Montana↗
USGS2003

A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park: Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome

This report is the result of a five-year collaboration between scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Olympic Field Station, and the natural resources staff of Olympic National Park to develop a comprehensive strategy for monitoring natural resources of Olympic National Park. Olympic National Park is the National Park Serviceʼs prototype monitoring park, representing parks in the coniferous forest biome. Under the umbrella of the National Park Serviceʼs prototype parks program, U.S. Geological Survey and Olympic National Park staffs are obligated to: develop strategies and designs for monitoring the long-term health and integrity of national park ecosystems with a significant coniferous forest component. design exportable monitoring protocols that can be used by other parks within the coniferous forest biome (i.e., parks having similar environments), and create a demonstration area and ʻcenter of excellenceʼ for assisting other parks in developing ecological monitoring programs. Olympic National Park is part of the North Coast and Cascades Network, a network of seven Pacific Northwestern park units created recently by the National Park Serviceʼs Inventory and Monitoring Program to extend the monitoring of ʻvital signsʼ of park health to all National Park Service units. It is our intent and hope that the monitoring strategies and conceptual models described here will meet the overall purpose of the prototype parks monitoring program in proving useful not only to Olympic National Park, but also to parks within the North Coast and Cascades Network and elsewhere. Part I contains the conceptual design and sampling framework for the prototype long-term monitoring program in Olympic National Park. In this section, we explore key elements of monitoring design that help to ensure the spatial, ecological, and temporal integration of monitoring program elements and discuss approaches used to design an ecosystem-based monitoring program. Basic monitoring components include ecosystem drivers, (e.g., climate, atmospheric inputs, human pressures), indicators of ecosystem integrity (e.g., biogeochemical indicators), known threats (e.g., impacts of introduced mountain goats), and focal or ʻkeyʼ species (e.g., rare or listed species, Roosevelt elk). Monitoring system drivers and key indicators of ecosystem integrity provide the long-term baseline needed to judge what constitutes ʻunnaturalʼ variation in park resources and provide the earliest possible warning of unacceptable change. Monitoring effects of known threats and the status of focal species will provide information useful to park managers for dealing with current park issues. In Part I we describe the process of identifying potential indicators of ecological condition and present conceptual models of park ecosystems. In addition we report results from several workshops held in conjunction with Olympic National Park aimed at identifying potential indicators of change in the parkʼs ecosystem. First, we describe the responses of Olympic National Park staff to the generic question, “What is the most important resource to monitor in Olympic National Park and why?” followed by the responses from resource and land managers from areas adjoining the park. We also catalogue the responses of various expert groups that we asked to help identify the most appropriate system drivers and indicators of change in the Olympic National Park ecosystems. Results of the workshops provided the justification for selecting basic indicators of ecosystem integrity, effects of current threats to park resources, and focal resources of parks to detect both the currently evident and unforeseeable changes in park resources. We conclude Part I by exploring several generic statistical issues relevant to monitoring natural resources in Olympic National Park. Specifically we discuss trade-offs associated with sampling extensively versus sampling intensively in smaller geographic regions and describe a conceptual framework to guide development of a generic sampling frame for monitoring. We recommend partitioning Olympic National Park into three zones of decreasing accessibility to maximize monitoring efficiency. We present examples of how the generic sampling frame could be used to help ensure spatial integration of individual monitoring projects. Part II of the report is a record of the potential monitoring questions and indicators identified to date in our workshops. The presentation is organized according to the major system drivers, components, and processes identified in the intermediate-level working model of the Olympic National Park ecosystem. For each component of the park system, we develop the need and justification for monitoring, articulate park management issues, and describe key resources and ecosystem functions. We also present a pictorial conceptual model of each ecological subsystem, identify monitoring questions, and list potential indicators for each monitoring question. We conclude each section by identifying linkages of indicators to other ecological subsystems in our general ecosystem model, spatial and temporal contexts for monitoring (where and how often to monitor), and research and development needs. Part II represents the most current detailed listing of potential indicators—the material for subsequent discussions of monitoring priorities and selection of indicators for protocol development. Collectively, the sections of this report contain a comprehensive list of the important monitoring questions and potential indicators as well as recommendations for designing an integrated monitoring program. In Part I, Chapter 6 we provide recommendations on how to proceed with the important next steps in the design process: establishing priorities among the many possible monitoring questions and indicators, and beginning to research and design effective long-term monitoring protocols.

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS2017

Long-term fish monitoring in large rivers: Utility of “benchmarking” across basins

In business, benchmarking is a widely used practice of comparing your own business processes to those of other comparable companies and incorporating identified best practices to improve performance. Biologists and resource managers designing and conducting monitoring programs for fish in large river systems tend to focus on single river basins or segments of large rivers, missing opportunities to learn from those conducting fish monitoring in other rivers. We briefly examine five long-term fish monitoring programs in large rivers in the United States (Colorado, Columbia, Mississippi, Illinois, and Tallapoosa rivers) and identify opportunities for learning across programs by detailing best monitoring practices and why these practices were chosen. Although monitoring objectives, methods, and program maturity differ between each river system, examples from these five case studies illustrate the important role that long-term monitoring programs play in interpreting temporal and spatial shifts in fish populations for both established objectives and newly emerging questions. We suggest that deliberate efforts to develop a broader collaborative network through benchmarking will facilitate sharing of ideas and development of more effective monitoring programs.

Colorado River, Columbia River, Illinois River, Mi↗
USGS2020

Characterization of surface-water and groundwater quality on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, 2014–17

The Fort Berthold Reservation is in west-central North Dakota and home to the Three Affiliated Tribes. The primary water-resources concerns on the Fort Berthold Reservation are associated with the different types of land uses from agricultural activities and the rapid development of oil and gas resources in western North Dakota. The Three Affiliated Tribes Environmental Department identified the need for long-term water-quality monitoring throughout the Fort Berthold Reservation to better understand the potential effects on surface-water and groundwater quality and to determine if water quality is changing with time. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Three Affiliated Tribes, identified surface-water sites and groundwater wells that represent the water resources in major drainages and the most utilized aquifers on the reservation. A water-quality monitoring program was designed to address data gaps and provide consistent long-term data that can be used to identify potential effects on water quality. During 2014–17, the initial water-quality sampling efforts associated with this program were completed. The efforts provide a current (2019) characterization of water-quality conditions in surface water and groundwater and can assist in establishing a long-term water-quality monitoring program

North Dakota↗
USGS2009

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River, one of the world's most spectacular gorges, is a premier U.S. National Park and a World Heritage Site. The canyon supports a diverse array of distinctive plants and animals and contains cultural resources significant to the region's Native Americans. About 15 miles upstream of Grand Canyon National Park sits Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1963, which created Lake Powell. The dam provides hydroelectric power for 200 wholesale customers in six western States, but it has also altered the Colorado River's flow, temperature, and sediment-carrying capacity. Over time this has resulted in beach erosion, invasion and expansion of nonnative species, and losses of native fish. Public concern about the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations prompted the passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to operate the dam 'to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established...' This legislation also required the creation of a long-term monitoring and research program to provide information that could inform decisions related to dam operations and protection of downstream resources.

General Information Product↗
USGS2022

Lacunarity as a tool for assessing landscape configuration over time and informing long-term monitoring: An example using seagrass

Context Seagrasses are submerged marine plants that have been declining globally at increasing rates. Natural resource managers rely on monitoring programs to detect and understand changes in these ecosystems. Technological advancements are allowing for the development of patch-level seagrass maps, which can be used to explore seagrass meadow spatial patterns. Objectives Our research questions involved comparing lacunarity, a measure of landscape configuration, for seagrass to assess cross-site differences in areal coverage and spatial patterns through time. We also discussed how lacunarity could help natural resource managers with monitoring program development and restoration decisions and evaluation. Methods We assessed lacunarity of seagrass meadows for various box sizes (0.0001 ha to 400.4 ha) around Cat Island and Ship Island, Mississippi (USA). For Cat Island, we used seagrass data from 2011 to 2014. For Ship Island, we used seagrass data for seven dates between 1963 and 2014. Results Cat Island, which had more continuous seagrass meadows, had lower lacunarity (i.e., denser coverage) compared to Ship Island, which had patchier seagrass beds. For Ship Island, we found a signal of disturbance and path toward recovery from Hurricane Camille in 1969. Finally, we highlighted how lacunarity curves could be used as one of multiple considerations for designing monitoring programs, which are commonly used for seagrass monitoring. Conclusions Lacunarity can help quantify spatial pattern dynamics, but more importantly, it can assist with natural resource management by defining fragmentation and potential scales for monitoring. This approach could be applied to other environments, especially other coastal ecosystems.

Mississippi↗
USGS2018

Comparison of estimators for monitoring long-term population trends in deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus, on the California Channel Islands

Capture-recapture methods are commonly used to estimate abundance and density of wild animal populations. Although a variety of sophisticated analytical techniques are available to evaluate capture-recapture data, vertebrate monitoring programs often lack the resources (e.g., time, personnel, and/or analytical expertise) to apply these methods. As an alternative, simple population indices, such as counts of unique individuals, may provide sufficient information to detect meaningful changes in population size. In this study we investigated whether a population index, easily generated from mark-recapture data under all conditions, might be used to provide valid ecological information for managers interested in long-term population trends of deer mice ( Peromyscus maniculatus ) on the California Channel Islands. In practice, determining the efficacy of estimating abundance from mark-recapture data and indices using empirical data (as opposed to simulated data) is difficult given the scarcity of long-term data sets that describe real populations. Using mark-recapture data that span 18 years ( n = 122 trapping events, >12,000 marked individuals) for deer mice on 2 of the islands, we compared density estimates obtained from several commonly used mark-recapture models and also compared these estimates to index counts. Populations of island deer mice are extremely dynamic; estimated densities over the data period varied from 0 to >1200 mice/ha. Density estimates from models in program CAPTURE and program DENSITY, as well as from model-averaged Huggins models, were strongly correlated with each other and with the density index. Densities calculated by the models and the index showed similar patterns of population variation and trend over time for all 5 sites. For long-term population monitoring and assessment of population trends in deer mice, our findings suggest that the use of a simple index may provide adequate understanding of ecologically relevant population changes, though data collection methods that allow for more detailed analyses using advanced modeling techniques should be maintained.

California↗
USGS2014

Status of whitebarkpine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: A step-trend analysis comparing 2004-2007 to 2008-2011

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is a foundation and keystone species in upper subalpine environments of the northern Rocky Mountains that strongly influences the biodiversity and productivity of high-elevation ecosystems (Tomback et al. 2001, Ellison et al. 2005). Throughout its historic range, whitebark pine has decreased significantly as a major component of high-elevation forests. As a result, it is critical to understand the challenges to whitebark pine—not only at the tree and stand level, but also as these factors influence the distribution of whitebark pine across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). In 2003, the National Park Service (NPS) Greater Yellowstone Inventory & Monitoring Network identified whitebark pine as one of twelve significant natural resource indicators or vital signs to monitor (Jean et al. 2005, Fancy et al. 2009) and initiated a long-term, collaborative monitoring program. Partners in this effort include the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, and Montana State University with representatives from each comprising the Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. The objectives of the monitoring program are to assess trends in (1) the proportion of live, whitebark pine trees (>1.4-m tall) infected with white pine blister rust (blister rust); (2) to document blister rust infection severity by the occurrence and location of persisting and new infections; (3) to determine mortality of whitebark pine trees and describe potential factors contributing to the death of trees; and (4) to assess the multiple components of the recruitment of understory whitebark pine into the reproductive population. In this report we summarize the past eight years (2004-2011) of whitebark pine status and trend monitoring in the GYE. Our study area encompasses six national forests (NF), two national parks (NP), as well as state and private lands in portions of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho; this area is collectively described as the GYE here and in other studies. The sampling design is a probabilistic, twostage cluster design with stands of whitebark pine as the primary units and 10x50 m belt transects as the secondary units. Primary sampling units (stands) were selected randomly from a sample frame of approximately 10,770 mapped pure and mixed whitebark pine stands ≥2.0 hectares in the GYE (Dixon 1997, Landenburger 2012). From 2004 through 2007 (monitoring transect establishment or initial time-step), we established 176 permanent belt transects (secondary sampling units=176) in 150 whitebark pine stands and permanently marked approximately 4,740 individual trees >1.4 m tall to monitor long-term changes in blister rust infection and survival rates. Between 2008 and 2011 (revisit time-step), these same 176 transects were surveyed and again all previously tagged trees were observed for changes in blister rust infection and survival status. Objective 1. Using a combined ratio estimator, we estimated the proportion of live trees infected in the GYE in the initial time-step (2004-2007) to be 0.22 (0.031 SE). Following the completion of all surveys in the revisit time-step (2008-2011), we estimated the proportion of live trees infected with white pine blister rust as 0.23 (0.028 SE; Table 2). We detected no significant change in the proportion of trees infected in the GYE between the two time-steps. Objective 2. We documented blister rust canker locations as occurring in the canopy or bole. We compared changes in canker position between the initial time-step (2004-2007) and the revisit time-step (2008-2011) in order to assess changes in infection severity. This analysis included the 3,795 trees tagged during the initial time-step that were located and documented as alive at the end of the revisit time-step. At the end of the revisit time-step, we found 1,217 trees infected with blister rust. This includes the 287 newly tagged trees in the revisit time step of which 14 had documented infections. Of these 1,217 trees, 780 trees were infected with blister rust in both time steps. Trees with only canopy cankers made up approximately 43% (519 trees) of the total number of trees infected with blister rust at the end of the revisit time-step, while trees with only bole cankers comprised 20% (252 trees), and those with both canopy and bole cankers included 37% (446 trees) of the infected sample. A bole infection is considered to be more consequential than a canopy canker, as it compromises not only the overall longevity of the tree, but its functional capacity for reproductive output as well (Kendall and Arno 1990, Campbell and Antos 2000, McDonald and Hoff 2001, Schwandt and Kegley 2004). In addition to infection location, we also documented infection transition between the canopy and bole. Of the 780 live trees that were infected with blister rust in both time-steps, approximately 31% (242) maintained canopy cankers and 36% (281) retained bole infections at the end of the revisit time-step. Infection transition from canopy to bole occurred in 30% (234) of the revisit time-step trees while 3% (23) transitioned from bole to canopy infections during this period. Objective 3. To determine whitebark pine mortality, we resurveyed all belt transects to reassess the life status of permanently tagged trees >1.4 m tall. We compared the total number of live tagged trees recorded during monitoring transect establishment to the total number of resurveyed dead tagged trees recorded during the revisit time-step and identified all potential mortality-influencing conditions (blister rust, mountain pine beetle, fire and other). By the end of the revisit time-step, we observed a total of 975 dead tagged whitebark pine trees; using a ratio estimator, this represents a loss of approximately 20% (SE=4.35%) of the original live tagged tree population (GYWPMWG 2012). Objective 4. To investigate the proportion of live, reproducing tagged trees, we divided the total number of positively identified cone-bearing trees by the total number of live trees in the tagged tree sample at the end of the revisit time-step. To approximate the average density of recruitment trees per stand, trees ≤1.4 m tall were summed by stand (within the 500 m² transect area) and divided by the total number of stands. Reproducing trees made up approximately 24% (996 trees) of the total live tagged population at the end of the revisit time-step. Differentiating between whitebark pine and limber pine seedlings or saplings is problematic given the absence of cones or cone scars. Therefore, understory summaries as presented in this report may include individuals of both species when they are sympatric in a stand. The average density of small trees ≤1.4 m tall was 53 understory trees per 500 m². Raw counts of these understory individuals ranged from 0-635 small trees per belt transect. In addition, a total of 287 trees were added to the tagged tree population by the end of 2011. These newly tagged trees were individuals that upon subsequent revisits had reached a height of >1.4 m tall and subsequently added to the sample. Throughout the past decade in the GYE, monitoring has helped document shifts in whitebark pine forests; whitebark pine stands have been impacted by insect, pathogen, wildland fire, and other disturbance events. Blister rust infection is ubiquitous throughout the ecosystem and infection proportions are variable across the region. And while we have documented mortality of whitebark pine, we have also recorded considerable recruitment. We provide this first step-trend report as a quantifiable baseline for understanding the state of whitebark pine in the GYE. Many aspects of whitebark pine health are highly variable across the range of its distribution in the GYE. Through sustained implementation of the monitoring program, we will continue efforts to document and quantify whitebark pine forest dynamics as they arise under periodic upsurges in insect, pathogen, fire episodes, and climatic events in the GYE. Since its inception, this monitoring program perseveres as one of the only sustained longterm efforts conducted in the GYE with a singular purpose to track the health and status of this prominent keystone species.

Natural Resource Technical Report↗
USGS2021

Water-resource management monitoring needs, State of Hawai‘i

In cooperation with the State of Hawai‘i Commission on Water Resource Management and in collaboration with the University of Hawaiʻi Water Resources Research Center, the U.S. Geological Survey developed a water-resource monitoring program—a rainfall, surface-water, and groundwater data-collection program—that is required to meet State needs for water-resource assessment, management, and protection in Hawai‘i. Current and foreseeable issues related to water-resource management and climate-change effects guided the evaluation of data-collection sites within the monitoring program. Data-collection sites currently (2018) being operated in Hawai‘i were evaluated, and additional data-collection sites were selected on the basis of their usefulness for characterizing anthropogenic effects on water resources or representing natural conditions. Data-collection strategies consist of a combination of continuous long-term monitoring to evaluate trends and climate-change effects and occasional and periodic intensive monitoring to enhance spatial understanding of hydrologic conditions and to address current issues in priority areas—areas that currently have water-availability issues or are expected to have the greatest socioeconomic or ecological effects because of climate change. Priority areas for rainfall monitoring consist of urban and agricultural lands, areas with high rainfall and high-rainfall gradient, and areas within the trade-wind inversion band. Surface-water priority areas consist of streams with major surface-water diversions, with established interim instream-flow standards, in a surface-water management area, that support water leases, and with uncertainties in hydrogeologic characteristics. Priority areas for groundwater monitoring consist of areas with high withdrawal, declining water levels, reduced recharge, limited alternative sources, and uncertainties in hydrogeologic characteristics. Data-quality objectives for the rainfall, surface-water, and groundwater monitoring programs that describe anticipated uses of the data were established with the goal of producing useful, reliable, and accurate water-resource information of sufficient precision to support decision making. The data-quality objectives also consider quality-assurance and quality-control programs that ensure defensible data. Establishment of common data-quality objectives not only assures comparability of data collected by multiple agencies but also allows data from academic, private, and public organizations to be useful for meeting State monitoring needs, provided the data meet appropriate data-quality objectives and data-accessibility requirements.

Hawaii↗
USGS2023

Sharing FAIR monitoring program data improves discoverability and reuse

Data resulting from environmental monitoring programs are valuable assets for natural resource managers, decision-makers, and researchers. These data are often collected to inform specific reporting needs or decisions with a specific timeframe. While program-oriented data and related publications are effective for meeting program goals, sharing well-documented data and metadata allows users to research aspects outside initial program intentions. As part of an effort to integrate data from four long-term large-scale US aquatic monitoring programs, we evaluated the original datasets against the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles and offer recommendations and lessons learned. Differences in data governance across these programs resulted in considerable effort to access and reuse the original datasets. Requirements, guidance, and resources available to support data publishing and documentation are inconsistent across agencies and monitoring programs, resulting in various data formats and storage locations that are not easily found, accessed, or reused. Making monitoring data FAIR will reduce barriers to data discovery and reuse. Programs are continuously striving to improve data management, data products, and metadata; however, provision of related tools, consistent guidelines and standards, and more resources to do this work is needed. Given the value of these data and the significant effort required to access and reuse them, actions and steps intended on improving data documentation and accessibility are described.

Enviornmental Monitoring and Assessment↗
USGS2015

Surprise and opportunity for learning in Grand Canyon: the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

With a focus on resources of the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program has included a variety of experimental policy tests, ranging from manipulation of water releases from the dam to removal of non-native fish within Grand Canyon National Park. None of these field-scale experiments has yet produced unambiguous results in terms of management prescriptions. But there has been adaptive learning, mostly from unanticipated or surprising resource responses relative to predictions from ecosystem modeling. Surprise learning opportunities may often be viewed with dismay by some stakeholders who might not be clear about the purpose of science and modeling in adaptive management. However, the experimental results from the Glen Canyon Dam program actually represent scientific successes in terms of revealing new opportunities for developing better river management policies. A new long-term experimental management planning process for Glen Canyon Dam operations, started in 2011 by the U.S. Department of the Interior, provides an opportunity to refocus management objectives, identify and evaluate key uncertainties about the influence of dam releases, and refine monitoring for learning over the next several decades. Adaptive learning since 1995 is critical input to this long-term planning effort. Embracing uncertainty and surprise outcomes revealed by monitoring and ecosystem modeling will likely continue the advancement of resource objectives below the dam, and may also promote efficient learning in other complex programs.

Arizona, Nevada, Utah↗
USGS2015

Monitoring landscape-level distribution and migration Phenology of Raptors using a volunteer camera-trap network

Conservation of animal migratory movements is among the most important issues in wildlife management. To address this need for landscape-scale monitoring of raptor populations, we developed a novel, baited photographic observation network termed the “Appalachian Eagle Monitoring Program” (AEMP). During winter months of 2008–2012, we partnered with professional and citizen scientists in 11 states in the United States to collect approximately 2.5 million images. To our knowledge, this represents the largest such camera-trap effort to date. Analyses of data collected in 2011 and 2012 revealed complex, often species-specific, spatial and temporal patterns in winter raptor movement behavior as well as spatial and temporal resource partitioning between raptor species. Although programmatic advances in data analysis and involvement are needed, the continued growth of the program has the potential to provide a long-term, cost-effective, range-wide monitoring tool for avian and terrestrial scavengers during the winter season. Perhaps most importantly, by relying heavily on citizen scientists, AEMP has the potential to improve long-term interest and support for raptor conservation and serve as a model for raptor conservation programs in other portions of the world.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2008

USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona

Executive Summary Glen Canyon Dam is located in the lower reaches of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on the Colorado River, approximately 15 miles upriver from Grand Canyon National Park (fig. 1). In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA; title XVIII, sec. 1801?1809, of Public Law 102-575), which seeks ?to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.? The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the 1996 Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that the primary mandate of the GCPA is met through advances in information and resources management (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). On November 3, 2006, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) announced it would develop a long-term experimental plan environmental impact statement (LTEP EIS) for operational activities at Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions on the Colorado River. The purpose of the long-term experimental plan is twofold: (1) to increase the scientific understanding of the ecosystem and (2) to improve and protect important downstream resources. The proposed plan would implement a structured, longterm program of experimentation to include dam operations, potential modifications to Glen Canyon Dam intake structures, and other management actions such as removal of nonnative fish species. The development of the long-term experimental plan continues efforts begun by the GCDAMP to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, including Grand Canyon, through adaptive management and scientific experimentation. The LTEP EIS will rely on the extensive scientific studies that have been undertaken as part of the adaptive management program by the U.S. Geological Survey?s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), one of the four research stations within the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center. On April 10 and 11, 2007, at the behest of Reclamation, the GCMRC convened a workshop with scientific experts to identify one or more scientifically credible, long-term experimental options for Reclamation to consider for the LTEP EIS that would be consistent with the purpose and need for the plan. Workshop participants included government, academic, and private scientists with broad experience in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon and regulated rivers around the world. Resource managers and GCDAMP participants were also present on the second day of the workshop. In advance of the workshop, Reclamation and LTEP EIS cooperating agencies identified 14 core scientific questions. Workshop participants were asked to consider how proposed options would address these questions, which fall primarily into four areas: (1) conservation of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and other high-priority biological resources, (2) conservation of sediment resources, (3) enhancement of recreational resources, and (4) preservation of cultural resources. A secondary objective of the workshop was the evaluation of four long-term experimental options developed by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG) (appendix B). The flow and nonflow treatments called for in the four experimental options were an important starting point for workshop discussions. At the beginning of the workshop, participants were provided with the final LTEP EIS scoping report prepared by Reclamation. Participants were also advised that Reclamation had committed to ?make every effortEto ensure that a new population of humpback chub is established in the mainstem or one or more of the tributaries within Grand Canyon? in the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). This decision was consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?s 1995 bi

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Preliminary assessment of a water-quality monitoring program for total maximum daily loads in Johnson County, Kansas, January 2015 through June 2016

Municipalities in Johnson County in northeastern Kansas are required to implement stormwater management programs to reduce pollutant discharges, protect water quality, and comply with applicable water-quality regulations in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharge. To this end, municipalities collect grab samples at streams entering and leaving their jurisdiction to determine levels of excessive nutrients, sediment, and fecal bacteria to characterize pollutants and understand the factors affecting them. In 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program, with input from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, initiated a 5-year monitoring program to satisfy minimum sampling requirements for each municipality as described by new stormwater permits issued to Johnson County municipalities. The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary assessment of the monitoring program. The monitoring program is described, a preliminary assessment of the monitoring program design is provided using water-quality data collected during the first 2 years of the program, and the ability of the current monitoring network and sampling plan to provide data sufficient to quantify improvements in water quality resulting from implemented and planned best management practices is evaluated. The information in this initial report may be used to evaluate changes in data collection methods while data collection is still ongoing that may lead to improved data utility. Discrete water-quality samples were collected at 27 sites and analyzed for nutrients, Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) bacteria, total suspended solids, and suspended-sediment concentration. In addition, continuous water-quality data (water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, turbidity, and nitrate plus nitrite) were collected at one site to characterize variability and provide a basis for comparison to discrete data. Base flow samples indicated that point sources are likely affecting nutrient concentrations and E. coli bacteria densities at several sites. Concentrations of all analytes in storm runoff samples were characterized by substantial variability among sites and samples. About one-half of the sites, representing different watersheds, had storm runoff samples with nitrogen concentrations greater than 10 milligrams per liter. About one-third of the sites, representing different watersheds, had storm runoff samples with total phosphorus concentrations greater than 3 milligrams per liter. Six sites had samples with E. coli densities greater than 100,000 colonies per 100 milliliters of water. Total suspended solids concentrations of about 12,000 milligrams per liter or greater occurred in samples from three sites. Data collected for this monitoring program may be useful for some general assessment purposes but may also be limited in potential to fully inform stormwater management activities. Valuable attributes of the monitoring program design included incorporating many sites across the county for comparisons among watersheds and municipalities, using fixed-stage samplers to collect multiple samples during single events, collection of base flow samples in addition to storm samples to isolate possible point sources from stormwater sources, and use of continuous monitors to characterize variability. Limiting attributes of the monitoring program design included location of monitoring sites along municipal boundaries to satisfy permit requirements rather than using watershed-based criteria such as locations of tributaries, potential pollutant sources, and implemented management practices. Additional limiting attributes include having a large number of widespread sampling locations, which presented logistical challenges for predicting localized rainfall and collecting and analyzing samples during short timeframes associated with storms, and collecting storm samples at fixed-stage elevations only during the rising limb of storms, which does not characterize conditions over the storm hydrograph. The small number of samples collected per site resulted in a sample size too small to be representative of site conditions, including seasonal and hydrologic variability, and insufficient for meaningful statistical analysis or site-specific modeling. Several measures could be taken to improve data utility and include redesigning the monitoring network according to watershed characteristics, incorporating a nested design in which data are collected at different scales (watershed, subwatershed, and best management practices), increasing sampling frequency, and combining different methods to allow for flexibility to focus on areas and conditions of particular interest. A monitoring design that would facilitate most of these improvements would be to focus efforts on a limited number of watersheds for several years, then cycle to the next set of watersheds for several years, eventually returning to previously monitored watersheds to document changes. Redesign of the water-quality monitoring program requires considerable effort and commitment from municipalities of Johnson County. However, the long-term benefit likely is a monitoring program that results in improved stream conditions and more effective management practices and efficient expenditure of resources.

Kansas↗
USGS2001

Recommended features of protocols for long-term ecological monitoring

In 1991, the National Park Service (NPS) selected seven parks to serve as prototypes for development of a long-term ecological monitoring program. Denali National Park and Preserve was one of the prototype parks selected. The principal focus of this national program was to detect and document resource changes and to understand the forces driving those changes. One of the major tasks of each prototype park was to develop monitoring protocols. In this paper, we discuss some lessons learned and what we believe to be the most important features of protocols. One of the many lessons we have learned is that monitoring protocols vary greatly in content and format. This variation leads to confusion about what information protocols should contain and how they should be formatted. Problems we have observed in existing protocols include (1) not providing enough detail, (2) omitting critical topics (such as data management), and (3) mixing explanation with instructions. Once written, protocols often sit on the shelf to collect dust, allowing methods changes to occur without being adequately considered, tested, or documented. Because a lengthy and costly research effort is often needed to develop protocols, a vision of what the final product should look like is helpful. Based on our involvement with the prototype monitoring program for Denali (Oakley and Boudreau 2000), we recommend key features of protocols, including a scheme for linking protocols to data in the data management system and for tracking protocol revisions. A protocol system is crucial for producing long-term data sets of known quality that meet program objectives.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2003

Guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols

Monitoring protocols are detailed study plans that explain how data are to be collected, managed, analyzed, and reported, and are a key component of quality assurance for natural resource monitoring programs. Protocols are necessary to ensure that changes detected by monitoring actually are occurring in nature and not simply a result of measurements taken by different people or in slightly different ways. We developed and present here guidelines for the recommended content and format of monitoring protocols. The National Park Service and United States Geological Survey have adopted these guidelines to assist scientists developing protocols for more than 270 national park units.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2015

Modeling and management of pit lake water chemistry 2: Case studies

Pit lakes, a common product of open pit mining techniques, may become long-term, post-mining environmental risks or long-term, post-mining water resources depending upon management decisions. This study reviews two published pit lake modeling studies and one pit lake monitoring program in order to increase the transparency of approaches used in pit lake prediction and management. The first model is a two-year limnological simulation of the existing Dexter pit lake, Nevada, USA that accurately modeled temperature profiles, salinity profiles, and turnover events observed between 1999 and 2000. The second model is a 55-year prediction of a future pit lake in the Martha Mine, New Zealand that identified the need for additional mitigation and evaluated potential effects of cost-effective mitigation options. The final study reviews eight years of monitoring data collected from the Berkeley pit lake, Montana, USA, from 2004 to 2012. This study identifies changes in the physical limnology and water quality of the pit lake that resulted from metal recovery operations, and highlights the value of monitoring programs in general. Whereas these pit lakes are different in many ways, the management tools discussed herein maximized the value and understanding of the post-mining resources.

Applied Geochemistry↗
USGS2022

Multi-species amphibian monitoring across a protected landscape: Critical reflections on 15 years of wetland monitoring in Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks

Widespread amphibian declines were well documented at the end of the 20th century, raising concerns about the need to identify individual and interactive contributors to this global trend. At the same time, there was growing interest in the use of amphibians as ecological indicators. In the United States, wetland and amphibian monitoring programs were launched in some national parks as a necessary first step to evaluating the status and trends of amphibian populations within some of North America’s most protected areas. In Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks, a multi-species amphibian monitoring program was launched by many of the authors in 2006 and continues to this day. This Viewpoint Article serves as a self-evaluation of our journey from conception through implementation of an ongoing, long-term monitoring program. This self-evaluation should provide a framework and guidance for other monitoring programs. We address whether we are fulfilling the program’s main objective of describing status and trends of the four amphibian species, discuss how a one-size-fits-all monitoring approach does not serve all species equally, and describe opportunities to bolster our core work using emerging statistical approaches and thoughtful integration of remote sensing and molecular tools. We also describe how the data generated over the program’s first 15 years have been useful beyond our initial goal of characterizing status and trend. Notably, our integration of climate datasets has allowed us to describe wetland and species-specific amphibian responses to variations in climate drivers. Documenting climate links to amphibian occurrence and their primary habitats has allowed us to identify which species, habitat types, and subregions within this large, protected landscape are most vulnerable to anticipated climate change. Recognizing that tools and threats change over time, it will be important to adapt our original monitoring design to maximize opportunities and use of resulting information. Maintaining engagement by multiple stakeholders and expanding our funding portfolio will also be necessary to sustain our program into the future. Finally, collaboration has become standard for long-term, cross-jurisdictional, landscape-scale monitoring. We argue that collaborative monitoring facilitates resource sharing, leveraging of limited funds, completion of work, and mutual learning. Such collaboration also increases the efficacy of conservation.

Wyoming↗