Laserfiche WebLink
I the core monitoring information needs (CMINs) identified in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan (2003) and <br />2 updated by SPG(Appendix A). <br />3 <br />4 GCMRC will annually conduct a TWG information needs workshop to review and refine specific <br />5 information needs and the proposed scope of monitoring for specific resources. The workshop will also <br />6 identify specific questions that managers would like to have addressed in the follow -up protocol <br />7 evaluation panel for each resource goal. For example, in FY2009 a TWG information needs workshop <br />8 was held to review the CMINs associated with native and nonnative fish monitoring. <br />9 <br />10 . The schedule for conducting information needs workshops on other core monitoring projects is shown in <br />11 table 2 at the end of this chapter. This is the point where needed risk assessments and trade -off analyses <br />12 will be discussed between GCMRC and TWG and integrated into the monitoring plan development. If <br />13 requested, GCMRC will provide to TWG a discussion of the trade -offs and potential choices in the <br />14 protocols that would be reasonable to consider, based on GCMRC experience in developing the protocols. <br />15 These options can be reviewed with TWG prior to GCMRC developing a final core monitoring proposal <br />16 in Step 4. <br />17 3.1.2 Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel Reviews <br />18 Step 3 of the four -step planning process involves conducting scientific protocol evaluation panel (PEP) <br />19 reviews to review the monitoring needs articulated by managers during the information needs workshop, <br />20 review the results of pilot monitoring efforts and other relevant research and development activities, and <br />21 recommend future monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the monitoring project. <br />22 These PEP review panels are comprised of independent scientists who have no vested interest in <br />23 GCDAMP. The scope of the PEP's review will be articulated in writing in advance of the PEP and <br />24 supported with relevant literature. The following information will be collected, compiled, and distributed <br />25 to the panels in advance of the review: <br />26 • GCDAMP management objective and information needs, as refined in the annual information <br />27 needs workshop <br />28 • Past and presently used monitoring protocols, including their technical or scientific basis <br />29 • Information on existing protocols, including methods and articles that describe various <br />30 monitoring approaches <br />31 • Requested risk assessments or trade -off analyses <br />32 <br />33 The review process may also involve reviewing technical presentations from GCMRC and other <br />34 researchers, as well as field trips. The panel develops its final report and recommendations in an executive <br />35 session. The PEP report presents findings and recommendations to the GCMRC chief and the science <br />36 advisors. The report reviews the positives and negatives of current monitoring protocols, and makes <br />37 recommendations for improvement. The results of each PEP evaluation are reviewed by TWG members, <br />38 and comments are forwarded to the GCMRC chief for consideration before new or modified monitoring <br />39 procedures are developed. A more detailed discussion of the PEP process is provided in Appendix B. <br />29 <br />