General Core M

Criteria 

Chair, Techn

AMWG February 10, 2011 
Purpose:

Develop general criteria to use 

individual core monitorin

1. Utilize decision support methods2. Final revisions to TWG Appendix 

comments.

3. Criteria will inform GCMRC as to 

evaluate the individual plans andwhat to include in them so we caplans.

4. The criteria help to define the ris

AMWG February 10, 2011 
Environmental decisions in the GCDAMP gen

complex scientific and technical issues – in a

variety of program participants, value confli

uncertainty, and social dynamics all combine 

environmental decisions difficult to make. T

previous efforts to develop core monitoring 

themselves represent a “Christmas tree” ap

below) which included all the “ornaments” o

by the diverse group within the GCDAMP. Th

was not adequately formulated with the recthere are trade‐offs among budget allocatio

determining change in resource conditions, 

managers take when decisions are made bafrom the monitoring.

AMWG August 12‐13, 2009 
The goal of this CMP process is to furthe

choices working in a collaborative relati

TWG, GCMRC, and AMWG. To accomplisdevelopment of individual core monitor

adopt a collaborative adaptive managem

utilizing (a) program Goals and CMINs, (

element inclusion within plans, (c) trade

a risk assessment framework, and most 

stakeholder involvement in the develop

these elements.

AMWG August 12‐13, 2009 
What is the GOAL of

Core Monitoring?

Develop

a robust, long

‐term

monitoring program that is core

to the goals of the AMP.

Supports critical functions of the

AMP and provides thefoundation to answering critical

questions or supporting critical

management actions.

Projects will not be altered in

periods of funding challenges.

AMWG February 10, 2011

The 

defi

folloConrepeusin

prot

and to a

queis im

schebudcircu

wateflow

stoccont

reso
After information needs are identified in adapt

programs, development and implementation o

programs typically proceed in three phases (Atothers, 2004):

1. Resources are inventoried and key relationships b

process, species, habitats, and other causes of va

operations are identified.

This was largely completed for most GCDAMP r

early 2000s

2. Long‐term monitoring protocols and sample desi

This step has been the focus for GCRMC during 

3. Long‐term monitoring and adaptive management 

implemented.

This is where we are now, this is what we are tr

AMWG February 10, 2011
2009 WORKSHOP RESU

Dot‐Ranking

1. Describe criteria for evaluation.2. Need DFCs.3. A risk assessment for critical choices, 4. Should avoid the “Christmas tree” app

range of the science budget.

5. The strategy discussion needs to be a 

the document describing the two straand management).

5. More integration of tribal monitoring 

CMP/goal.

AMWG February 10, 2011 
Priority issues/concerns addre

in current draft plan

1. Expanded description of Step 4: describe

analyses that will be done before TWG m

Monitoring recommendation

2. Recognizes need to conduct trade‐off ana

assessments to understand implications o

monitoring approaches with more/less acprecision, sampling intensity etc. – also bof these choices

3. Define TWG process for evaluating/appro

core monitoring proposals (Appendix B)

AMWG February 10, 2011
TWG APPENDIX B

A Collaborative Approach

(A) Decision making process using SDM(B) Trade‐off analysis, risk assessment(C) Include a range of three alternatives 

form the structure of the risk assessm

(D) Evaluation criteria(E) Stakeholder involvement in the deve

of all of these elements.

AMWG February 10, 2011
TWG APPENDIX B: SD

Step 1: Clarify the Decision Context (CMP: sco

Step 2: Define Objectives and Evaluation Crite

the core of SDM is a set of well defined obje

evaluation criteria)

Step 3: Develop Alternatives (App. B: High, M

>> Workshop to define specifics for each p

Step 4: Estimate Consequences (individual pla

Step 5: Evaluate Trade‐Offs and Select

>> Workshop to establish preference asse

weighting)

Step 6: Implement and Monitor (CMP)

AMWG February 10, 2011
AMWG August 12‐13, 2009 

SDM
TWG APPENDIX B: Altern

Scope and Cost

Trade‐off analysis framewo

 “High” – would implement the CMINs for that 

extent practicable and represent as close to fu

implementation as can be obtained with curre

is based on current implementation strategy b

 “Medium” – would implement modest reduct

(about 10‐30%) to implement the higher prior

 “Low” – would implement substantial reducti

(about 40‐50%) to implement only the highest 

AMWG February 10, 2011
AMWG August 12‐13, 2009 

SDM
TWG APPENDIX B: The Ob

Define a long‐term mana

program which satisfies t

needs identified in the CM

For each individual plan, 

objectives are the CMINs

themselves.

AMWG February 10, 2011
Goal 2 Objectives

AMWG August 12‐13, 2009 
AMWG August 12‐13, 2009 

SDM
TWG APPENDIX B: Evaluatio

The core of SDM is a set 

defined objectives and

evaluation criteria. Toge

define "what matters" a

decision, drive the searc

creative alternatives, an

become the framework f

comparing alternatives.

AMWG February 10, 2011
TWG APPENDIX B: Evaluatio

In SDM, evaluation criteria are used to chara

degree to which different alternatives are exmeet objectives. They are used to:

• compare alternatives accurately and consist• expose trade‐offs including trade‐offs amon

degrees of uncertainty;

• generate productive discussion about better • prioritize information needs;• communicate the rationale for and improve 

transparency of decisions.

AMWG February 10, 2011
TWG APPENDIX B: Evaluatio

It isn't easy to define good evaluation cr

widely agreed upon by stakeholders, exp

decision makers. However, the up‐front 

pays off in streamlined decision making, 

principal reasons:

• because data, modeling and expert judg

processes are focused on producing deci

information;

• because large numbers of very complex 

be consistently and efficiently evaluated 

decision makers.

AMWG February 10, 2011
TWG APPENDIX B: Evaluatio

"What specific metric could we use to 

impact of these alternatives (High, M

on this objective?(CMIN)"

Or

"What specific information would yo

to be able to evaluate the impact of t

alternatives on this objective?"

AMWG February 10, 2011
TWG APPENDIX B: Evaluatio

 AMWG Priority MOs and CMINs Compliance Legacy data Ecosystem importance Data quality/availability Cost/benefit and risk asses Status of knowledge Methedology Trade‐off Analysis

AMWG February 10, 2011
AMWG August 12‐13, 2009 

SDM
Discussion

AMWG February 10, 2011