Laserfiche WebLink
Element <br />Activity <br />Tools <br />Finalize reports and fact sheets <br />Address peer review comments <br />Final editing <br />Disseminate deports and information <br />Web site <br />Stakeholder workshops <br />Annual Reporting meetings <br />Continual <br />Periodically review project <br />Peer review panels (PEPS) <br />improve <br />2 3.2.3 Incorporating Future Technical Innovations into Monitoring Programs <br />3 New and innovative approaches are constantly being found as development of individual monitoring <br />4 protocols proceeds. The GCMRC believes that long -term monitoring protocols should continue to <br />5 evaluate new and improved methods when available and as appropriate through time. Project budgets <br />6 should ideally be increased annually by a few percent to enable the projects to continue evaluating new <br />7 methods and monitoring instruments and to cover periodic independent reviews. <br />8 <br />9 A key failing of the historical monitoring program has been to make a variety of changes in trend <br />10 monitoring methods without continuing parallel sampling using old methods for a limited period of time; <br />11 the use of old and new methods in parallel allows scientists to cross calibrate trend indicators. Parallel <br />12 sampling efforts are especially important when evaluating new noninvasive sampling methods or changes <br />13 in sampling efforts. <br />14 <br />15 Besides requiring sufficient ongoing funds, any evaluation of new methods must be systematic such that <br />16 data collected remain fully comparable through time, including comparing newly proposed methods to <br />17 existing methods. Changes in data collection and sampling design that cause "disconnects" in long -term <br />18 data streams are to be avoided. New methods will be evaluated while previous data collection methods <br />19 are continued (parallel sampling) to ensure that cross - calibration of trend indicators is possible. This is <br />20 particularly important when new methods are proposed with the intention of reducing costs —an <br />21 inevitable concern with any long -term monitoring program. <br />22 <br />23 After a period of parallel data collection, full external peer review of the data comparisons, environmental <br />24 impacts, and costs will be conducted prior to making any changes in the monitoring approach that would <br />25 forego previously established monitoring methods or data. This is one example of the commitment to goal <br />26 12 for ensuring a quality adaptive management program for the GCDAMP. <br />27 <br />28 Evaluation of noninvasive sampling methods as a basic component of maintaining quality monitoring <br />29 programs may include the following activities: <br />30 <br />31 Remote sensing for riparian sediment, vegetation resources, and campsites <br />32 0 Remote sensing for evaluation of fine -scale and longitudinal thermal regimes <br />33 0 Use of automatic counting systems (for example, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in the <br />34 Little Colorado River) <br />35 <br />