1

GENERAL CORE MONITORING PLAN 

December 1, 2009, TWG WORKSHOP RESULTS 

ATTENDEES

Participants: Shane Capron, Rick Johnson, Andy McKinster, Dave Speas, Tom Ryan, Sam 

Spiller, Cliff Barrett, Bill Davis, Jason Thiriot, Steve Mietz, Kerry Christensen, Kurt Dongoske, 

Jay Groseclose, Mike Yeatts, Glen Knowles, Mary Barger, Bill Werner, Norm Henderson, 

Don Ostler. 

GCMRC Staff present: John Hamill, Ted Melis, Glenn Bennett, Paul Grams, Helen Fairley and 

Pam Sponholz (acting BIO program manager for Matthew Andersen) 

Observers: Dave Garrett and Pam Garrett, M3Research 

Facilitator: Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company, LLC 

MEETING PURPOSE AND DESIRED OUTCOMES

• Achieve understanding of the GCMRC proposed general strategy for long term core 

monitoring (measuring trends in “signals” for resources of critical interest to GCDAMP). 

• Enhance support for the general Core Monitoring Plan (including timelines, budget, staffing 

requirements) and completion of remaining steps (see MRP, 2007, pp. 5-6) for all resource 

areas. 

• Tentative agreement on timeframe and steps for TWG to develop recommendation to 

AMWG. 

AGENDA

The group used the follow agenda as a guide during the workshop: 

1 Welcome, Introductions, and Meeting Purpose – Mary Orton, Facilitator

2 Overview of the General Core Monitoring Plan – John Hamill 

a Review of MRP steps and objectives 

b Purpose of and need for a CMP 

c Overview of major sections of the CMP and relationship to SSP/MRP and AMPSP 

d Overview of status and next steps for each of the monitoring projects (Table 3, page 30 

of CMP) 

e Relationship of the CMP to DOI and State monitoring program needs 

3 Science Advisors’ Comments and Suggestions 

a Overview – Dave Garrett (:15) 

b Q&A, Discussion with TWG (:30) 

4 TWG Comments and Suggestions – Shane Capron 

a Overview (:40) 

b Discussion – are there additions to Shane’s list? (:20) 

5 Most important issues to be resolved for TWG to approve the General CMP – prioritize and 

discuss 

6 Conclusions and Next Steps – John Hamill 

a Timeline for revision of final draft and recommendation to AMWG 

b Other items 

7 Adjournment 
2

TWG COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Shane Capron, TWG Chair, created this compilation of major issues from all the comments that 

were submitted on the GCMRC draft Core Monitoring Plan, and was handed out at the 

beginning of the meeting. 

GENERAL PROCESS 

1. Roles and responsibilities of GCMRC, TWG, AMWG, and DOI should be directly discussed, 

who is responsible for what in this process and what are the sideboards? 

2. The strategy discussion needs to be a greater focus of the document describing the two 

strategies (science and management; Chapter 2) 

3. Need for more discussion about other monitoring programs and monitoring in general 

(LTER, literature) background, lessons learned, approaches, sampling design 

4. Section 2 should be rewritten to describe in more detail the process for the development of 

the individual plans in greater detail (i.e., expanded discussion of Step 4). This should 

include an adaptive management component with sideboards on the process to allow 

forward movement of the plan. 

5. Large gulf between science and management in the program, exemplified by KA, what are 

the implications of uncertainty in science and management? 

CRITERIA FOR ELEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANS (DESCRIPTION OF STEP 4) 

6. Full integration of CMINs/SSQs into the strategy for each goal. 

7. Risk assessment for critical choices (qualitative or quantitative based on available 

resources). We lack information on trade-offs between statistical precision and sampling 

intensity that will drive costs, these analyses should drive our decision making. Potential 

components of a risk assessment: 

o Discussion of trade-offs between statistical precision, sampling intensity/extent, 

cost, and effectiveness and how the program should look at the scientific 

implications of these trade offs 

o This includes recommendations on design and statistical analysis, including the 

use of power analysis to develop designs and set sampling levels to achieve 

desired precision 

o Frequency/extent: a series of options might be given which show how the power 

is reduced, or other effect including cost, by either reducing or increasing 

sampling rate or extent 

8. Describe criteria for activity inclusion in core monitoring proposals. Examples: 

o Core monitoring proposal should be based on priority: high priority items should 

be included and the priority identified. Some elements of core monitoring will be 

higher priority than others and should be identified 

o Confidence: include only those activities with high confidence of relating to the 

eventual DFCs 

o CMIN: activity is essential to address the minimalist viewpoint for the CMIN (is 

everything core?). April 9, 2004 CMT memo: in this document, the CMT 

suggests that the long term plan “adopt a minimalist framework (e.g., no 

ornaments on the Christmas tree)” 

9. To what extent have PEP recommendations been implemented including design and 

statistical analysis, including the use of power analysis to develop sampling designs and set 

sampling levels to achieve desired precision 
3

More integration of tribal monitoring in each CMP/goal, critical lack of tribal integration now with 

emphasis on other areas which may be a responsibility of the NPS. Better integrate tribal values 

in ecosystem management (Figure 4), TCPs

OVERALL COST 

10. Missing is concerns of CMT and others to avoid the “Christmas tree” approach and to keep 

the budget in the 40-60% range of the science budget. Support a process which allows for 

core monitoring choices which use less of the budget. 

11. Budget should be divided into core monitoring, research and development with monitoring, 

and experimental components (e.g., Knowledge Assessment color approach) 

12. GCMRC has grown beyond the scope of the 1996 ROD, and could be replaced in part by a 

consortium of academics for core monitoring. Costs don’t appear to be competitive with what 

could be achieved through other routes 

13. We lack information on trade-offs between statistical precision and sampling intensity that 

will drive costs, these analyses should drive our decision making 

14. The description of the present staffing plan should include how many individuals are 

employed in what capacity, why some positions are or are not filled, and more detail on how 

well the program involves outside collaborators, and how many students are supported by 

the program. A justification should be provided about how the present staffing varies from 

the original concept for GCMRC in the ROD. How does the plan for 26 FTEs fit with 

budgetary constraints we know are coming? Higher staff levels inevitably mean increasing 

costs greater than CPI. Relate staffing needs with org chart. 

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS (DFCs) 

15. How can we accurately determine which of the core monitoring proposals meets our needs, 

or perhaps is beyond our needs without specified DFCs for the Management Objectives and 

without updated AMP Goals? Can we proceed without DFCs, and if so how and what does it 

mean to the program? Many of the elements may not need DFCs, others might really need 

them, how do we move forward and advise AMWG? 

SCOPE OF MONITORING 

16. Geographic scope is defined as CRE, which discusses tribes, tribes should be included 

17. GCMRC seems to have constrained the scope of monitoring beyond the language identified 

in the plan 

18. CMP should be focused on monitoring for dam operations 

19. Lack of a strong species inventory limits our ability to understand ecosystem processes, 

greater emphasis on inventory programs is needed 

20. Need to identify how other agency monitoring programs will be integrated (e.g., NPS I&M 

program). 

21. Need to identify how other agency monitoring programs will be integrated (e.g., NPS I&M 

program)

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED FOR TWG TO APPROVE THE GENERAL CMP –

PRIORITIZE AND DISCUSS

TWG members were invited to add to the list of 21 items (Shane’s short list of issues) and to 

modify existing items on the list. Then, each was given three dots and asked to indicate their 

priority for resolution before TWG approved the CMP. They repeated that three-dot exercise two 

more times. The following is the result of the exercise, with changes and additions to the original 
4

list of 21 items. The cells highlighted in green indicate in which round that item received enough 

dots to have a priority number. 

Res

ultant 

Ran

k 

Issues Initi

al # 

Roun

d A: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d B: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d C: # 

of 

Dots 

1 Describe criteria for activity inclusion in core monitoring 

proposals. Examples: 

• Core monitoring proposal should be based on priority: 

high priority items should be included, some elements of 

core monitoring will be higher priority than others and 

should be identified 

• Confidence: include only those activities with high 

confidence of relating to the eventual DFCs 

• CMIN: activity is essential to address the minimalist view 

point for the CMIN (is everything core?). April 9, 2004 

CMT memo: in this document, the CMT suggests that 

the long term plan “adopt a minimalist framework (e.g., 

no ornaments on the Christmas tree)” 

Added at workshop: Be clear about the process of how 

priorities are set for the CMP. What resources need to be 

monitored? 

Added at workshop: Develop a way to reduce or eliminate a 

CM protocol when it is no longer needed. Establish a metric 

of success.

Added at workshop: Adequacy to answer critical questions 

and inform critical decisions.

Added at workshop: Add to the first bullet “...such as 

endangered species, water quality standards, and other 

compliance requirements.” 

8 11 1 X 

2 How can we accurately determine which of the core 

monitoring proposals meets our needs, or perhaps is 

beyond our needs without specified DFCs for the MOs? Can 

we proceed without DFCs, and if so how and what does it 

mean to the program? Many of the elements may not need 

DFCs, others might really need them, how do we move 

forward and advise AMWG? 

Added at workshop: Goals need to be revisited. 

16 9 1 X 
5

Res

ultant 

Ran

k 

Issues Initi

al # 

Roun

d A: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d B: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d C: # 

of 

Dots 

3 Risk assessment for critical choices (qualitative or 

quantitative based on available resources). Examples: 

• Discussion of trade-offs between statistical precision, 

sampling intensity/extent, cost, and effectiveness and 

how the program should look at the scientific 

implications of these trade offs 

• This includes recommendations on design and statistical 

analysis, including the use of power analysis to develop 

designs and set sampling levels to achieve desired 

precision 

• Frequency/extent: a series of options might be given 

which show how the power is reduced, or other effect 

including cost, by either reducing or increasing sampling 

rate or extent 

At the workshop, this item was merged with #14: We lack 

information on trade-offs between statistical precision and 

sampling intensity that will drive costs, these analyses 

should drive our decision making. 

7 / 

14 

8 1 X 

4 Missing is concerns of CMT and others to avoid the 

“Christmas tree” approach and to keep the budget in the 40-

60% range of the science budget. Support a process which 

allows for core monitoring choices which use less of the 

budget. 

At the workshop, this item was merged with #12 after Round 

A: Budget should be divided into core monitoring, research 

and development with monitoring, and experimental 

components (e.g., Knowledge Assessment color approach). 

Added to original #12 at workshop: Add distinction between 

monitoring and core monitoring.

11 / 

12 

4 

(#11) 

+1 

(#12) 

=5 

11 X 

5 The strategy discussion needs to be a greater focus of the 

document describing the two strategies (science and 

management; Chapter 2) 

At the workshop, this item was merged with #4: Section 2 

should be rewritten to describe in more detail the process for 

the development of the individual plans in greater detail (i.e., 

expanded discussion of Step 4). This should include an 

adaptive management component with sideboards on the 

process to allow forward movement of the plan. 

2 / 4 2 7 X 
6

Res

ultant 

Ran

k 

Issues Initi

al # 

Roun

d A: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d B: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d C: # 

of 

Dots 

5 More integration of tribal monitoring in each CMP/goal, 

critical lack of tribal integration now with emphasis on other 

areas which may be a responsibility of the NPS. Better 

integrate tribal values in ecosystem management (Figure 4), 

TCPs. 

Added at workshop: Include how tribes will be consulted in 

developing overall and independent CMPs.

10 5 7 X 

6 Need to identify how other agency monitoring programs will 

be integrated (e.g., NPS I&M program). 

21 2 6 X 

7 Added at workshop: Include socioeconomic core monitoring. 23 1 3 10 

8 Geographic scope is defined as CRE, which discusses 

tribes, tribes should be included. 

At the workshop, this item was merged with #18: GCMRC 

seems to have constrained the scope of monitoring beyond 

the language identified in the plan. 

Added to #17 at workshop: To include areas necessary for 

successfully monitoring the CRE. 

17 / 

18 

0 2 6 

8 CMP should be focused on monitoring for dam operations. 19 1 3 6 

9 Need for more discussion about other monitoring programs 

and monitoring in general (LTER, literature) background, 

lessons learned, approaches, sampling design. 

3 1 1 5 

9 The description of the present staffing plan should include 

how many individuals are employed in what capacity, why 

some positions are or are not filled, and more detail on how 

well the program involves outside collaborators, and how 

many students are supported by the program. A justification 

should be provided about how the present staffing varies 

from the original concept for GCMRC in the ROD. How does 

the plan for 26 FTEs fit with budgetary constraints we know 

are coming? Higher staff levels inevitably mean increasing 

costs greater than CPI. Relate staffing needs with org chart. 

15 2 1 5 

9 Added at workshop: Develop strategic plan for monitoring 

required to support reintroduction of extirpated species. 

24 1 2 5 

Roles and responsibilities of GCMRC, TWG, AMWG, and 

DOI should be directly discussed, who is responsible for 

what in this process and what are the sideboards? 

1 1 0 1 

Large gulf between science and management in the 

program, exemplified by KA, what are the implications of 

uncertainty in science and management? 

5 0 0 1 

Full integration of CMINs/SSQs into the strategy for each 

goal. 

6 1 2 3 

To what extent have PEP recommendations been 

implemented including design and statistical analysis, 

including the use of power analysis to develop sampling 

designs and set sampling levels to achieve desired 

precision. 

9 0 0 3 
7

Res

ultant 

Ran

k 

Issues Initi

al # 

Roun

d A: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d B: # 

of 

Dots 

Roun

d C: # 

of 

Dots 

GCMRC has grown beyond the scope of the 1996 ROD, 

and could be replaced in part by a consortium of academics 

for core monitoring. Costs don’t appear to be competitive 

with what could be achieved through other routes. 

13 0 0 1 

Lack of a strong species inventory limits our ability to 

understand ecosystem processes, greater emphasis on 

inventory programs is needed. 

20 0 0 0 

Added at workshop: Reports need to be timely and 

universally available. 

22 1 2 1 

N/A This item was merged into #2 before Round A. 4 X X X 

N/A This item was merged into #11 after Round A. 12 (1) X X 

N/A This item was merged into #7 before Round A. 14 X X X 

N/A This item was merged into #17 after Round A. 18 0 X X 

The following points were made during the dot-voting exercise. Mary Orton asked the group to 

talk about why they though some items had received a high or low number of dots. She also 

invited them to share why they thought an item should be a high priority in the following round. 

 Prioritizing, “Define how the priorities were set (add to Issue #11).” I do not believe that the 

priorities have been adequately considered in the development of the General CMP. I want 

to be certain that the “process” of the collaboration between managers and scientists be 

explicitly described in the General CMP. Added to Issue #8 “Be clear about the process of 

how priorities are set for the CMP. What resources need to be monitored?” 

 The whole point of #8 is to ensure that the TWG has a role in the process of prioritization 

(collaboration between the scientists and managers). 

 Can there be a description about a way to add or remove elements of the CMP? If a given 

DFC is accomplished, then could the core monitoring be reduced or eliminated for that 

resource – and if that process was identified, then I would be more comfortable with the 

CMP. I want to know that the construction of the core monitoring could be reduced or 

downsized as the goals of the GCDAMP are achieved. Added to #8 – “Develop a way to 

reduce or eliminate a CM protocol when not needed.” 

 What are the metrics of success that can be evaluated in order to determine when and if the 

core monitoring can be reduced or removed. Added to #8 also. 

 This plan will be merged with the MRP and the revisions of the MRP should be tied to the 

GCDAMP Strategic Plan – the new and revised MRP would build off from any revisions in 

the Strategic Plan revisions. The Annual Workplans and the CMP within it would be 

adapted to the overall planning process of the GCDAMP on an annual to 5-year cycle. (see 

section 2.9 in the revised draft). This section could be expanded to better identify the 

process of how the CM can grow or shrink, etc. 

 Add #24 – “Develop SP for monitoring required to support reintroduction of extirpated 

species.” 

 Question about General Process listing (five points). Perhaps #s 2 and 4 could be 

combined? Nobody objected, so it was done and these two were also combined. 

 How does the MRP and the General CMP relate back to the GCDAMP Strategic Plan? This 

relates to Issue #16. Added to #16 “Goals need to be revisited before the General Core 

Monitoring Plan is completed.” 

 Where does it state what is derived for the budgeted activities? Shane states that this issue 

basically falls into #7 – bullets #1 and #3. 

 The role and value of monitoring the CRE downstream of the dam. 
8

 Something might be added to #8, information gained from the monitoring program must be 

used to formulate recommendations to the SOI about management actions – such as a 

change in operations? What are the criteria or utility of the information and its acceptable 

use in making recommendations that might be needed in the future? Added another bullet 

to #8 “Adequacy of the core monitoring information to answer critical questions, to inform 

critical decisions.? 

 Is it appropriate for core monitoring to monitor outside of the agreed upon GCDAMP 

definition of the CRE? 

 It would be outside of the agreed upon geographical scope of the CRE as defined in the 

GCDAMP’s strategic plan. 

 Should there be some text added to clarify the issue of the “core-of-the-core?” Does this fit 

into any of the existing Issues? Apparently, there is a need to clarify this, but it is not in #12 

presently. Added to #12: “Add a distinction between monitoring and “core monitoring” to the 

existing issue. 

 Would monitoring of species outside the CRE, as defined, constitute “core monitoring” or 

not? Would like to have a comment that the GCMRC re-evaluate the definition of core 

monitoring. 

 Issues that relate to laws that exist outside the program. ESA and CWA require certain 

compliance activities, but these need to be more clearly identified. Added to #8, first bullet 

should include “such as ESA, CWA, water quality standards, other compliance 

requirements.” Perhaps just highlighting it better. 

 Suggested combining #7 and #14. No objection, so these two were then combined. 

 Request a statement added to the effect “that compliance be specifically and clearly 

identified – especially, with respect to tribal consultation and involvement.” 

 Suggest that they agree to what they are identifying as priority issues – using the GREEN

dots voting exercise. 

Round A of dot voting was done. Priority #1 is original #8, #2 priority is original #15, and priority 

#3 is original #7. These are set aside and not part of the exercise in future rounds. Mary asked, 

“Why were those three chosen?” 

 They mostly reflect the issues that have to do with making priority decisions about what is 

desired in terms of resource “targets” and monitoring information. These are followed by the 

issues relating to tribal integration and the issue of costs and the construction of a 

“Christmas” tree with more ornaments than may be needed for managers to manage. 

Mary asked, “What should be important in Round B?” 

 I would have voted for #16 issue on DFCs, but I was under the impression that those would 

be dealt with by the DOI agencies – hence, we would not be able to influence them through 

a discussion at this point in time. 

 I maintain that the limitations that are now in place (geo – scope) may evolve to some other 

conditions through the ongoing, adaptive management process (if it is really working). The 

idea that the CRE, as developed in 1998, should remain fixed is not in line with AEAM. 

Today, it may become clear that a broader scope of core monitoring might make a great 

deal of sense. 

 Mary combined #11 and #12 at the request of the group.. 

 I voted for #6 because of the same reason that Cliff did not vote for #16. Is #6 the desire to 

have some influence on the priorities setting process (through focus on CMINs/SSQs)? 

 Regarding the scope of monitoring –the wording of Issue #19 – “dam operations” being the 

focus of core monitoring. Is there agreement about the interpretation of this comment? 

 Request that #17 be revised to read “Scope of monitoring might be expanded to include 

other areas necessary for successfully monitor the CRE (areas that may be outside the 

current definition of the CRE.” 
9

 When #8 was re-written (adequacy to answer critical questions, inform critical decision), I 

believed that its importance was elevated and I think that folks should vote for it. 

 Mary combined #17 with #18 at the request of the group. 

 I believe that the CMP budget should be 40-60% of the Science budget, not the AMP 

budget. #11. 

Round B of dot voting was done. Priority #4 is #11-12, #5 priority is #10 and, #2/4, and priority 

#6 is #21. These are set aside and not part of the exercise in future rounds. Mary asked, “Why 

were those chosen?” 

 Issues of importance – I voted for the issue of scope – I would like for AMWG to provide 

more clarification on the CRE definition. 

Round B of dot voting was done. Priority #7 is #23, #8 priority is #17/18, and #3, #15 and #24 

are tied for ninth. 

The group agreed to further discuss the high-priority issues, and they began with Issue #8: 

 GCMRC’s perspective from John Hamill: our approach to issues raised in #8 was that we 

focused on the history of where the emphasis has historically been in the development of 

the annual workplans and other plans that have come out of the GCDAMP. As we have 

followed that documented guidance, there now seems to be doubt from some TWG 

members about whether or not those perceived priorities are still valid and supported by the 

GCDAMP. If these are not the right balance of priorities, then the TWG needs to provide the 

additional guidance to come up with a revision of the Draft CMP that would be more 

supported by the TWG. We committed to providing some level of monitoring for each of the 

resources identified in the GCDAMP’s Strategic Plan. 

 Request for a specific section of the CMP that reflects the concern about the issue language 

“Describe criteria for activity inclusion in core monitoring proposals.” 

 Need to have some assurance that the monitoring will directly address the need tied to the 

eventually determined DFC? 

 Idea was to take the number one CMIN for each resource and step that down to 

management need (stepping down process has not been done). We need to do the step 

down process before the entire core monitoring plan can be meaningfully developed. 

 Nearshore temperatures are brought up as an example of how monitoring and modeling 

could be used to meet the needs. 

 Quite a bit of discussion on the need to get the priorities set straight before the General 

Core Monitoring Plan. 

 There needs to be a process in place to allow the adaptive management group to resolve 

what their need is for getting the core monitoring needed for doing the management. There 

needs to be a spectrum of options for levels of certainty about the information on status and 

trends for given resources. 

 There needs to be a process for assessing the level of needs for resource information that 

managers could use in the adaptive management program. Alternative approaches would 

need to be identified for different levels of monitoring (sediment monitoring, might be the one 

to start with since this is one project that has attempted to complete the Step 4 

recommendations report process and shared it with the TWG). 

 Concerned with the fact that the priorities are not defined well prior to the completion of Step 

4 reporting. By including everything that’s being done right now, you impose priorities into 

the General CMP that have not really been vetted through the TWG and AMWG. 

 Agrees that the priorities need to be resolved by the TWG, then the four-step process 

should be pursued. 

 Agrees that the priorities need to be set at the Strategic Planning level – by AMP. 

 It’s too big to grasp all at once in the General Plan. 
10

 The management community needs to get the work done in setting the priorities – the 

science community cannot do this. 

 I wonder whether the priorities have been actually resolved by the AMP. (Mary Orton 

recounted the 2004 AMP priorities process that resulted in the priority of the strategic 

questions.) 

 Some things are obviously missing: extirpated species and socio-economic monitoring. 

 Is the socio-economic part of the need actually a core monitoring activity or is it a part of the 

research part of the MRP? 

 I believe that the DFCs must be established to fully grasp the scope of monitoring needs. 

 GCRMC should be able to tell the managers whether or not the proposed protocols will be 

able to inform the SOI about the influence of the managed actions (operations or otherwise). 

 A good place to start is the fisheries PEP and completion of Step 4 for Rainbow Trout and 

Humpback Chub in FY 2010. 

 I am concerned that the DFC process is continually delayed and if we remain inactive while 

waiting, the planning process does not turn out to be a quality result. 

Discussion on issue #11/#12: 

 There is a need for maintaining some flexibility as the program moves into the future. The 

essential “core-of-the-core” monitoring would be the part that occurs without question at 

whatever the interval. Then the second level of monitoring would have the latitude to 

implement or not in a given year – depending upon the perceived need of managers to best 

meet their needs along with the other activities (research) that are required. 

It was suggested by GCMRC that the process agreed upon by TWG members for collaborating 

with GCMRC on development of Step 4 monitoring reports (recommendations for core 

monitoring) be implemented in 2010 with respect to the Step 4 report for fisheries monitoring 

(rainbow trout and native fishes) since the PEP report has now been finalized. 

NEXT STEPS

a. Discuss & agree on any large items/areas left out of draft CMP (or that should be 

eliminated), 

b. Amend the Step-4 process to include General Comments #1 & #3 (dot-ranked). Implement 

the changes in process with the Goal 2 (fish program) core monitoring plan. Shane, Rick and 

Cliff will work with GCMRC on this revision., 

c. Recommendation to AMWG on DFCs (#2 dot-ranked) to be considered at January TWG 

meeting during the discussion on GCMP, 

d. Define iterative process between GCMRC & TWG for finalizing core monitoring plan. Shane, 

Rick and Cliff will work with GCMRC on this revision for January 2010, 

e. Come to agreement on core monitoring definition, 

f. GCMRC will create a response to comments table and revise draft for March 2010 TWG 

meeting, 

g. Norm and Shane will discuss the large-scale prioritization of the GCMP, and then possibly 

fold that into the small group above, 

h. GCMRC will report to TWG (report to be given by Helen Fairley on January 21, 2010) & 

AMWG (February 2010) on results of this workshop and solicit feedback. 

Timeline
11

January 2009: GCMRC will report to TWG at its January meeting on the progress on revisions 

and major tasks outlined at the workshop. 

March 2009: GCMRC will create a response to comments table & revise the GCMP draft for the 

March TWG meeting.