Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001918 <br /> <br />Secretary should be made on specific progress on work items and expected future <br />work timeframes. A better reporting mechanism should be considered. <br /> <br />2 ~ The recommendations from PEP panels and Science Advisors are not being fully <br />implemented, nor is there a sufficient process for following through with <br />recommendations. <br />Solution - The AMP needs better follow-through with recommendations. AMWG <br />needs to give specific guidance in response to recommendations, particularly with <br />respect to work plans and budget. Budget constraints and tradeoffs restrict full <br />implementation due to a lack of desire to cut back existing science efforts. There is <br />some dysfunction in how scientific direction is provided to GCMRC. At every <br />AMWG meeting there should be a report on actions taken by the TWG, GCMRC <br />and P A groups on the priority questions and what is being accomplished. Once an <br />AMWG decision is made, continued kibitzing by other groups undermines and <br />AMWG recommendation. AMWG guidance should come at the front end of <br />discussions, not at the budget recommendation stage. GCRMCshould provide <br />guidance on cost and effort required to address core questions, which should be <br />asked by the managers. <br /> <br />3 - Resource integration is much more complex and difficult to address than single- <br />resource considerations. <br />Solution - The sediment resource has been addressed much more successfully than <br />the biological sciences, largely a result of a lack of clear scientific results. We need <br />to be clear on our expectations of experimentation, and what role the results will <br />play in our management recommendations. There is a significant question about <br />how much information is required to make management recommendations. The <br />next step may be new ground for the A WMG. There is some concern that the <br />AMWG does not have enough data for this discussion, nor do they know how much <br />data they need. AMWG members must read GCMRC reports; which are generally <br />available and the program should take advantage of existing tools (e.g. conceptual <br />model) to improve understanding. <br /> <br />4 - The A WMG may not have an adequate process for dealing with tradeoff evaluation, <br />especially in cases where our prior management recommendations are not producing <br />expected outcomes. Timing of resource response and status of resources may also play to <br />this issue. A difficult challenge is the status of both sediment and JIBe resources. There <br />are no easy answers or cookbook solution to determining when a policy has failed. Also <br />difficult is the gap between knowledge and action. . The role of science is also uncertain. <br />Monitoring has shown results of our assumed "fixes" but a lack of experimentation on <br />alternative operations and management actions has left us without a clear understanding <br />of risk and effects of potential alternatives. <br />Solution - Science Advisors should provide guidance on level of information needed, <br />resource status, and risk as applied to decision making. <br /> <br />5 - There is a lack of understanding of the role ofthe Science Advisors. <br />Solution - We should review the SA operating protocols. <br />