DRAFT FOR TWG REVIEW 

Appendix B 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans 

Despite potentially improving conservation decisions, the benefits of the information gained from costly 

monitoring programs may not always outweigh the costs of acquiring it. Understanding the nature of 

these costs and benefits is vital to evaluating them rationally in the context of financial limitations and the 

urgency of conservation issues (Field et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2008, Legg and Nagy 2006). The 

GCDAMP is faced with a financial crisis, climate change, management actions, endangered species 

recovery, and increasing costs of doing business has left the program with substantial limitations which 

affect our ability to do adaptive management. Monitoring is generally perceived as a rational and 

defensible activity in the pursuit of improved conservation outcomes. Rarely, however, do we critically 

assess the relative value of gaining information or the utility of what we collected (Field et al. 2007). 

Legg and Nagy (2006) advise us that we must be prepared to forego monitoring in some cases by 

explicitly asking the question: is spending money on monitoring justified relative to funding other actions, 

including strategic research? Importantly, a decision to direct resources away from monitoring is not 

driven by reluctance to evaluate our conservation investments. Instead, this decision is driven by a desire 

to maximize expected conservation outcomes given limited resources (Legg and Nagy 2006). 

1.0 Introduction 

The MRP describes a four-step process for defining and refining core monitoring projects (1) develop a 

general core monitoring plan (CMP), (2) conduct information needs workshops with the Technical Work 

Group (TWG) in advance of convening independent protocol evaluation panel (PEP) reviews, (3) conduct 

PEPs for each resource goal, and (4) prepare final core monitoring program reports for each resource 

goal. This is then followed by review and approval by TWG and AMWG. This appendix describes 

TWG’s role in the review and approval process and describes expectations by TWG when reviewing the 

individual plans. 

Environmental decisions in the GCDAMP generally involve complex scientific and technical issues – in 

addition, a wide variety of program participants, value conflicts, scientific uncertainty, and social 

dynamics all combine to make environmental decisions difficult to make. The result of previous efforts to 

develop core monitoring and the CMINs themselves represent a “Christmas tree” approach (described 

below) which included all the “ornaments” or questions posed by the diverse group within the GCDAMP. 

The current CMP was not adequately formulated with the recognition that there are trade-offs among 

budget allocation, precision of determining change in resource conditions, and risks that managers take 

when decisions are made based on results from the monitoring. 

The goal of this CMP process is to further refine those choices working in a collaborative relationship 

between TWG, GCMRC, and AMWG. To accomplish this, the development of individual core 

monitoring plans will adopt a collaborative adaptive management framework utilizing (a) program Goals 

and CMINs, (b) criteria for element inclusion within plans, (c) trade-off analyses in a risk assessment 

framework, and most of all (d) stakeholder involvement in the development of all of these elements. 

2.0 Background 

As described in Chapter 1 of this plan, in March 2004, a core monitoring ad hoc committee composed of 

members of the GCD Technical Work Group and staff of the GCMRC was convened by a decision of the 

AMWG. This group of individuals, referred to as the Core Monitoring Team (CMT), represented a crossTWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
section of many GCDAMP resource management concerns and scientific disciplines. Although the team 

was not successful in completing a CMP as was envisioned by AMWG (see Chapter 1 for further details), 

the CMT did explore some important policy-related issues and had some relatively clear conclusions 

about how the CMP should developed. Unfortunately none of those conclusions were every truly tested at 

the policy-level (AMWG). The TWG would like utilize these key conclusions by the CMT as a starting 

point for our guidance in this revised review and approval process. 

On April 9, 2004, the CMT met and produced a position statement on core monitoring. The statement 

outlined a number of assumptions and resources to study. The CMT identified 10 assumptions that would 

need to be embraced in the development of the GCMP: 

1. Use available technology, as appropriate, 

2. Adopt a minimalist framework (e.g., no ornaments on the Christmas tree), 

3. Meet the needs of stakeholders and answer their specific management questions, 

4. Strive for automated techniques that are less invasive and more efficient, 

5. The budget needs to support the plan (e.g., 40-60% of our budget for core), 

6. Build for consistency, 

7. Build for longevity, 

8. Incorporate flexibility to adopt new technologies, 

9. The plan will be reviewed and accepted by SAB/TWG/AMWG/GCMRC staff, and 

10. The results of monitoring will be regularly reported. 

In general the current approach by GCMRC follows these guidelines except for numbers 2 and 5 which 

relate to the scope and cost of the program. In various documents from the CMT, they refer to a goal of 

40-60% of the science budget to be used for core monitoring (not a percentage of the total budget) in 

order to allow for money to support compliance needs and experimentation – this was the impetus of the 

core monitoring idea was to describe the most important research which would occur in years when funds 

were not available to fund all of the projects we might wish to do. On May 6, 2005 GCMRC reiterated 

this goal in a memo from Helen Fairley to the TWG, it read; “It is anticipated that 40-60% of the annual 

GCMRC budget will be devoted to projects within the FCMP [Final Core Monitoring Plan].” Given 

obvious budget constraints currently facing the program and likely to in the future due to issues such as 

climate change and others, the need to limit the core monitoring program is even more important than 

ever. The current GCMRC proposal represents about 75% of the science budget and highly constrains are 

abilities to exercise adaptive management with current funding levels. This is nothing new, the CMT 

struggled with these issues during their work in 2004-2005 and came up with a series of criteria to 

evaluate what should be “core.” Thus, in this process we will be requesting tools to help us make these 

difficult choices such as a trade-off analysis for each plan which incorporates different funding levels. 

The level generally proposed by GCMRC in this document will be considered the “high” option; two 

other options below that level will also be requested by TWG. 

Another outcome of the April 9, 2004 meeting was a position statement articulating decisions, roles and 

responsibilities, definitions, and basic principles the group endorsed related to the process for how the 

CMP would be developed. The CMT reviewed and adopted the definition of core monitoring proposed in 

the AMP Strategic Plan: 

Consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to 

measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring 

is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for 

example, water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, 

nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources.

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
Although there was clear recognition and acceptance that emphasis was to be placed on key resources and 

specific questions, CMT members eventually identified most resource categories evaluated in the EIS as 

being necessary components of the plan. A popular metaphor subsequently identified the plan as a 

“Christmas tree” on which everyone wanted to hang their favorite “ornaments.” 

On May 4, 2004, the CMT was assembled again in an attempt to reduce the scope (that is, reduce the 

number of “ornaments”) of the CMP. Although the team strived for a minimalist strategy (i.e., no 

ornaments), this goal went largely unrealized. The CMT decided that the following resource categories of 

concern would be covered in the CMP: CMP: (1) sediment; (2) wildlife/vegetation; (3) fish; (4) food 

base; (5) register eligible historic properties; (6) other cultural resources of tribal concern; (7) hydrology; 

(8) water quality; (9) recreation; (10) threatened and endangered species; (11) power; and (12) non-native 

species. 

The CMT affirmed the importance of relating monitoring activities to the questions arising out of the 

AMP strategic plan. Relevant fundamental questions included the following: (1) What and why do 

managers need to know? (2) Where do they want to know it? (3) How frequently do they need to know? 

(4) What are the general methods to obtain this information? (5) What is the level of precision/accuracy 

needed? (6) How will the monitoring data be presented? (7) Is it answering the managers’ questions?, 

and (8) What are the metrics of success, and how is success defined? 

The general consensus of those present was that the GCMRC had been given sufficient information to 

begin working on the plan, and GCMRC was instructed to do so without further delay. Incorporating the 

input from the CMT, a third draft of the CMP was distributed to the TWG on September 24, 2004, and 

was discussed at the March 10–11, 2005, meeting of the CMT. To help identify and document the 

potential shortcomings of projects included in the draft CMP, a list of criteria was developed that 

collectively addressed the concerns of CMT members for evaluating each project. An ad-hoc 

subcommittee was formed to develop a more refined process for addressing the evaluation criteria and to 

transmit that information to the CMT. Initially, at the March 10–11, 2005, meeting, the CMT developed 

seven criteria with which to evaluate how well each “green” project met an existing AMP goal. 

Evaluation criteria were compiled from CMT discussions, flip charts, and notes from individuals in 

attendance at the meeting. These seven criteria assumed that scientific methodology exists to accomplish 

all or part of the monitoring activity. Whether or not acceptable methodology exists was later added as 

criterion 8. The criteria were: 

1. AMWG Priority: does the data directly or indirectly address an AMWG priority? 

2. MOs and CMINs: does the data directly or indirectly address and existing MO and specific 

CMINs? 

3. Compliance: does the data satisfy a specific legal compliance requirement outside of GCPA and 

the NPS Organic Act (e.g., EIS/ROD, ESA, LOR, NHPA)? 

4. Legacy: Does the data contribute to an historical record that is important to continue? 

5. Data quality/availability: is the accuracy and precision of the data known for proposed data 

collection, and if so, is the level of accuracy/precision adequate, inadequate, or more than 

adequate to meet the needs of the program? 

6. Cost/benefit and risk assessment: what are the relative merits of collecting this data relative to 

other data collection? 

7. Status of knowledge: what is the current status of data analysis and knowledge for the resource? 

8. Methedology: does methodology exist that provides acceptable accuracy, precision, and 

frequency of data? 

On March 23, 2005, a conference call was held among the CMT subcommittee members and an outline of 

the process was developed. It was decided that a complete revision of the current CMP was impractical 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
within the timeframes allowed in the current development schedule and that a provisional plan would 

have to suffice for 2005–06. Therefore, a fourth draft of the CMP, this time composed only of the “green 

projects,” was sent to the science advisors for review on April 5, 2005, and was distributed to the CMT on 

April 9, 2005. This fourth draft was discussed at the April 11–12, 2005, CMT meeting, where some CMT 

members expressed the opinion that the existing draft plan was fundamentally flawed in both format and 

content. General criticisms included the following: 

1. The plan did not provide the level of detail desired by AMP members. 

2. The plan lacked information on the accuracy, precision, and frequency needed to ascertain change 

over time. 

3. The plan did not provide an ecosystem perspective. 

4. The plan was not integrated between scientific disciplines. 

5. There was continuing confusion over what is core monitoring vs. other kinds of monitoring. 

6. There was confusion over whether yellow and red projects should be part of the plan or part of a 

different plan. 

7. The plan did not provide enough detail as to how monitoring projects addressed AMP goals. 

Some of these issues reflect the concerns of individual stakeholders, and others reflect group consensus. 

For example, the group agreed that the entire CMP needed to be reoriented around AMP goals and the 

data necessary to support those goals, rather than continuing along the path of attempting to evaluate the 

existing GCMRC monitoring program on a project-by-project basis. There was also group consensus that 

the CMP should address at least some aspect of all the resources identified in the AMP goals, minus goals 

3 and 12. In addition it was recognized that an essential component of the plan was still missing—an 

ecosystem perspective. Furthermore, the CMT determined that the plan was hampered by the lack of a 

clear definition by stakeholders of what core monitoring was trying to achieve within the AMP, including 

fundamental requirements such as how much change in a resource needed to be detected over what period 

of time. There was general agreement that these fundamental issues needed to be resolved through 

additional discussion among TWG members. 

The CMT subsequently determined that even if existing projects met all the evaluation criteria, budget 

realities would continue to constrain AMP monitoring activities and that therefore, a process needed to be 

developed that prioritized AMP strategic goals, management objectives, and information needs so that 

rational decisions could be made relative to which monitoring activities would be funded at what levels 

and which ones would receive less funding or none at all. The CMT also decided that some additional 

criteria needed to be added, such as relative importance of a given resource for ecosystem function. 

Once the CMT recognized that they needed to undertake an entirely new process for evaluating proposed 

monitoring activities, the group decided that GCMRC should complete a provisional plan for FY06 

quickly and with minimal additional effort so that the team could focus their full attention on developing 

an entirely new, AMP goal-oriented core monitoring plan. The resulting FY06 Provisional Core 

Monitoring Plan only included projects that had undergone one or more PEP evaluations, had been 

piloted and results peer-reviewed, and had been implemented for one to several years using methods 

deemed adequate for long-term monitoring. Projects in this category included (1) Lake Powell quality of 

water, (2) downstream surface water (discharge and stage measurements), (3) downstream quality of 

water for a limited suite of parameters, such as temperature, specific conductivity, and suspended 

sediment, (4) status of Lees Ferry rainbow trout, and (5) status of humpback chub in the Little Colorado 

River (LCR). These “green” projects constituted the core elements of the FY06 provisional draft plan. 

Termination of the Core Monitoring Team approach to developing a core monitoring plan coincided with 

the initiation of the Science Planning Group (SPG) in summer 2005. The primary purpose of the SPG was 

to develop a long-term experimental plan, but in the course of this effort, several activities were 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
undertaken that helped to further the aims of core monitoring plan development. Specifically, the SPG 

revisited, refined, and prioritized the resource goals and core monitoring information needs (CMINs) for 

the program. The results of this prioritization exercise, reflected in Appendix A, have been used to guide 

the development of this current plan. 

This current draft CMP describes the development of individual plans in detail and expands greatly on 

step 4 of the process and the information necessary to support the development and implementation of 

individual core monitoring plans. The CMP outlines an adaptive management approach which integrates 

risk assessment, trade-off analyses, and specified criteria in the development of the individual plans such 

that managers will have the information necessary to make informed decisions about the scope, intensity, 

and cost of the core monitoring program. The TWG has identified an initial goal of 40-60% of the science 

budget to be devoted to core monitoring. This initial goal was defined to allow for substantial funds to be 

available for research studies and other monitoring aspects designed to complement the core monitoring 

program in order to test whether the goals and objectives of the AMP are being achieved (i.e., ROD 

operations of GCD). 

The CMP results in projected expenditures above the goal articulated by the TWG based on myriad 

CMINs described by the program. GCMRC is not in a position to make policy choices about how to 

reduce costs, accept higher risk associated with potentially less robust programs, and define goals. Thus, 

this process must inherently be iterative working with the TWG and AMWG to develop individual plans 

that provide a range of options with varying tradeoffs of cost, statistical precision, and extent. GCMRC 

can articulate measures of risk associated with these choices, to the extent practicable, but the managers 

must make choices about how to implement the program. It is likely that the program will choose less 

risk-averse options the first time through this process and that revisions are likely in order to weigh total 

core monitoring program costs against risk. The sediment program is a good example of this situation. 

The sediment core monitoring plan was conditionally approved by TWG knowing that after other plans 

were developed that we would want to revisit the sediment plan to reconsider costs and relationship to 

program goals and overall cost of core monitoring. Chapter 1 describes the first process undertaken by the 

Core Monitoring Team and the resulting “Christmas tree” approach. Thus, the cost estimates in this plan 

likely bracket the upper end of the possible funding needs. It is up to the managers to make informed 

choices about reducing the cost of this program based on the analyses described here. 

3.0 Scope and Cost Evaluation of Individual Plans 

The GCMP identifies the general goals, objectives, scope, schedule, and funding level for each proposed 

core monitoring project as well as the program as a whole. The scope of the CMP is based on the core 

monitoring information needs (CMINs) defined by AMWG in the 2003 Strategic Plan, as modified and 

prioritized by the 2005 Science Planning Group (Appendix A). The CMP takes into account the 

feasibility of developing monitoring protocols to meet those needs while including a flexible approach for 

incorporating risk assessments and trade-off analyses to support decision making related to the scope and 

elements of the monitoring programs. The CMP also identifies the process and strategies which will be 

used to develop and finalize individual core monitoring program plans. 

The CMP has been responsive to most of the higher priority CMINS, however given the scope of the 

information needs and funding limitations to develop monitoring programs, it does not currently account 

for all of them. Development and implementation of the core monitoring program for the GCDAMP 

would consume a large percentage of the current GCDAMP science budget based on the CMINs. The 

CMP includes initial estimates for costs and timeframes for program implementation but recognizes that a 

practical decision-making process will be needed by TWG to decide on a core monitoring program that 

meets stakeholder needs within available budget constraints. Those budget constraints cannot be 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
articulated here as needs for management actions and other compliance needs are changing, but appear to 

be taking a larger percentage of the budget than in recent years. 

In general, TWG is requesting that each individual plan contain 3 levels of funding within a trade-off 

analysis framework: 

“High” – would implement the CMINs for that goal to the extent practicable and represent as 

close to full implementation as can be obtained with current resources, and is based on current 

implementation strategy by GCMRC. 

“Medium” – would implement modest reductions in spending (about 10-30%) to implement the 

higher priority CMINs. 

“Low” – would implement substantial reductions in spending (about 40-50%) to implement only 

the highest priority CMINs. 

The analysis would not only show the reductions in cost, but the ability of the program to respond to 

CMINs (i.e., the ability to answer critical questions), and the rationale for those choices. These tradeoffs 

will be considered by TWG and a recommendation made to AMWG to consider the policy implications 

of those choices and to approve a plan that is both technically sound and well considered within our longterm financial limitations. This process would allow for a scientifically driven review of different funding 

scenarios and provide the decision-makers with the information necessary to make difficult policy 

decisions. It is inevitable that at current funding levels we cannot support robust monitoring capable of 

responding to all of the CMINs during the next 10 years, thus we understand that a serious review of our 

core monitoring program is critical in supporting the long-term funding needs of the GCDAMP. Given 

future funding needs by many competing activities, we expect that the monitoring program will be 

reduced to some extent, that process should include a structured review process (Appendix B) and include 

a clear understanding of the abilities which will be lost and which resources they would affect. In 

previous core monitoring discussion scope of the program was considered and from 2004 the Core 

Monitoring Team indicated that an appropriate size would be 40-60% of the GCDAMP budget. The 

current program is about 60% of the overall budget and about 75% of the current GCMRC budget. 

Unresolved issue, how do we achieve and overall cost objective, how do we get to 40-60%? 

4.0 Elements of Individual Core Monitoring Plans for Review by TWG 

At the center of this process is the review by TWG and subsequent approval or disapproval based on 

various criteria proposed below. Within those criteria we describe how GCRMC should generally meet 

those criteria and how TWG should score how well those criteria were satisfied. The framework of the 

individual plans described in section 3.0 above will go a long way in providing the policy information 

necessary to make good decisions, each program must be weighed for its significance in the adaptive 

management program. We propose that the TWG use a structured decision-making (SDM) process to 

evaluate these plans. This process would involve two TWG meetings with an initial and final review with 

a vote to recommend the plan for acceptance or rejection by AMWG. Structured Decision Making, or 

SDM, is an organized approach to identifying and evaluating creative options and making choices in 

complex decision situations. At the time of this writing SDM was being used to facilitate alternative 

development in the nonnative fish control plan EA with Reclamation. We propose a similar process here 

for each core monitoring plan in order to reach robust recommendations in a reasonable amount of time. 

Given how long this program has worked on a core monitoring plan it is clear that reaching decisions will 

not be easy and must be structured. 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
The SDM process is generally carried out in 6 steps (www.structureddecisionmaking.org 2010): 

Step 1: Clarify the Decision Context 

The first step in good decision making involves defining what question or problem is being 

addressed and why, identifying who needs to involved and how, establishing scope and bounds 

for the decision, and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the decision team. 

More... 

Step 2: Define Objectives and Evaluation Criteria 

The core of SDM is a set of well defined objectives and evaluation criteria. Together they define 

"what matters" about the decision, drive the search for creative alternatives, and become the 

framework for comparing alternatives. 

More... 

Step 3: Develop Alternatives 

A range of creative policy or management alternatives designed to address the objectives is 

developed. Alternatives should reflect substantially different approaches to the problem or 

different priorities across objectives, and should present decision makers with real options and 

choices. 

More... 

Step 4: Estimate Consequences 

Step 4 is an analytical exercise in which the performance of each alternative is estimated in terms 

of the evaluation criteria developed in Step 2. Care must be taken to determine the focal areas of 

uncertainty and to ensure that these are represented properly in the analysis. 

More... 

Step 5: Evaluate Trade-Offs and Select 

SDM is not a black box, and group discussion should always play a central role in evaluating 

preferences for alternatives. However, in many cases, preference assessment techniques (such as 

swing weighting) may be used to help people understand their preferred alternatives. 

More... 

Step 6: Implement and Monitor 

The last step in the decision process then is to identify mechanisms for on-going monitoring to 

ensure accountability with respect to on-ground results, research to improve the information base 

for future decisions, and a review mechanism so that new information can be incorporated into 

future decisions. 

This GCMP provides the information needed in Step 1 and to a certain extent Step 6 of the SDM process. 

We provide the criteria for Step 2 below in the 10 criteria listed and described. We provide the range of 

alternatives for Step 3 in section 3.0 above, requesting “high”, “medium”, and “low” scenarios. We then 

propose that a series of two workshops (initial and final review) would occur at TWG to fully implement 

the process and focusing on SDM Steps 4-6. The specifics of those workshops and the SDM process 

would need to be worked out at a later date based on the complexity of the core monitoring plan and the 

funding and availability of experts to conduct the SDM. TWG should be involved in determining the 

appropriate SDM process. 

1. AMWG Priority: does the data directly or indirectly address an AMWG priority? 

a. GCMRC: 

• Describe the relationship to AMWG priorities and DFCs 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
• Discuss whether or not an AMWG priority is being addressed directly or indirectly 

• If the priority is not being addressed completely, describe the scope of what is and is 

not being addressed by current data. 

b. TWG: 

• do the activities relate to the 2004 AMWG priorities and draft DFCs (if available) to 

determine if it is a priority? 

2. MOs and CMINs: does the data directly or indirectly address an existing MO and specific CMINs? 

a. GCRMC: 

• Each individual plan must describe the CMINs that it relates to, and how the research 

activity will satisfy those CMINs in order of priority. 

• Note whether or not they are being addressed directly or indirectly. 

• Specify the information needed to answer the CMINs completely. 

• Describe what would be needed to overcome current limitations in answering the 

question completely. 

b. TWG: 

• Does the program address higher priority CMINs? Lower priority CMINs may 

become MINs as part of the TWG recommendation using the cost/benefit analysis 

below (i.e., High, Medium, Low funding scenarios). 

3. Compliance: does the data satisfy a specific legal compliance requirement of GCPA, NPS Organic 

Act, EIS/ROD, ESA, LOR, or NHPA? 

a. GCMRC: 

• Describe the compliance requirements to the extent known by GCMRC, and 

how/why the data address them. 

• If the compliance requirement is not being addressed completely, the scope of the 

what is and is not being addressed. 

b. TWG: 

• does the data satisfy a specific legal compliance requirement of GCPA, NPS Organic 

Act, EIS/ROD, ESA, LOR, or NHPA? 

4. Legacy: Does the data contribute to an historical record that is important to continue? 

a. GCMRC: 

• Provide a complete description of the legacy data to include original purpose, where 

collected, accuracy/precision/frequency of data, was it validated by an acceptable 

QC/QA plan, PEP review, metadata available, does the data meet GCMRC 

standards? 

b. TWG: 

• Does the data contribute to an historical record that is important to continue? 

• Could the data be continued in a less costly scenario using “bridge” sampling to 

ensure statistical robustness of the change? Does the analysis take these options into 

account? 

5. Ecosystem importance: how well does the CMIN that is being responded to in the activity represent 

the resource or ecosystem? 

a. GCMRC: 

• How well do the data represent the resource and the ecosystem? 

• Do the data relate specifically to a critical ecosystem function? 

b. TWG: 

• Can it be used as an indicator of overall ecosystem health? 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
• Can it represent multiple resources at equivalent or lower trophic levels? 

6. Data quality/availability: is the accuracy and precision of the data known for proposed data 

collection, and if so, is the level of accuracy/precision adequate, inadequate, or more than adequate to 

meet the needs of the program? What level of statistical power is available over 10 years based on a 

false change error (alpha) of .05 to .1? 

a. GCMRC: 

• What data is being proposed for collection? 

• How will the data be collected? 

• Where will the data be collected? 

• Describe the accuracy/precision/frequency necessary for the program to meet the 

management objectives? 

• What is the statistical power (beta), and the objective over what time period? 

• Describe the data QC and QA plan? 

• Specify whether or not GCMRC compliant metadata has been developed. 

• Specify whether or not the data meet GCMRC data standards. 

• How and where will the data be stored and shared with the program and cooperators? 

b. TWG: 

• Are the data accurate and precise to meet management objectives? 

• Are study design protocols sufficient to meet management goal to have 80% power 

(beta = .20) to detect a 20% change in the resource trajectory over 10 years while 

maintaining a 10% false change error rate (alpha = 0.10)? Or a similar management 

goal based on the resource? 

7. Cost/benefit and risk assessment: what are the relative merits of collecting this data relative to other 

data collection? 

a. GCMRC: 

• Describe the consequence of collecting the data with higher and lower accuracy, 

precision, and frequency in terms of cost, ability to detect change over time, 

knowledge, and risk to the resource. Use the “high”, “medium”, and “low” trade-off 

analysis framework described above in section 3.0 to characterize these various 

levels of funding and analysis. 

• Describe how the data are being or will be analyzed and what types of publications or 

other products are likely as a result. 

•

b. TWG: 

• What changes to the resource will the accuracy, precision, and frequency of data 

collection pick up (climatic, natural variability, natural or man-made events, etc.) 

over what minimum time interval? 

• What are the implications to adaptive management for the trade-off between cost of 

the various program and the likelihood of successful adaptive management actions? 

8. Status of knowledge: what is the current status of data analysis and knowledge for the resource that 

the data is intended to monitor? 

a. GCMRC: 

• Discuss whether or not the data has been analyzed. 

• Discuss whether or not targets and/or metrics have been established. 

• Describe what the data shows relative to AMWG priorities and CMINs. 

• Discuss whether or not the data are measuring the right things/variables. 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
• Discuss the current status and trend of the resource based upon this data. 

• Describe what is known about cause and effect relationships, and relevance of data to 

evaluating such relationships. 

• Discuss whether or not the data is meeting the AMP’s need relative to detecting 

decline or improvement of a resource over a useful period of time. 

b. TWG: 

• Evaluate the robustness of the data based on the variables above. 

9. Methedology: does methodology exist that provides acceptable accuracy, precision, and frequency of 

data? 

a. GCMRC: 

• Describe the proposed methodology. 

• Is similar work being done elsewhere? If yes, provide a synopsis of similar work 

being done and methodology used. 

• Describe possible alternative methodologies, and discuss the pros and cons of these 

alternative methods in terms of costs, accuracy, precision, and frequency of data. 

b. TWG: 

• Evaluate the methodology, does it meet management needs at the least cost? 

10. Trade-off Analysis: weigh criteria above with three cost scenarios and assess risk and benefits to the 

program considering 

a. GCMRC: for each plan provide three scenarios for funding and implementation 

• “High” – would implement the CMINs for that goal to the extent practicable and 

represent as close to full implementation as can be obtained with current resources, 

and is based on current implementation strategy by GCMRC. 

• “Medium” – would implement modest reductions in spending (about 10-30%) to 

implement the higher priority CMINs. 

• “Low” – would implement substantial reductions in spending (about 40-50%) to 

implement only the highest priority CMINs. 

b. TWG: evaluate the options to determine which best meets the programs overall needs at the 

lowest cost. Are the objectives met using variables which represent the change of interest 

over the desired time period to elicit management actions? Consider all variables above in the 

SDM framework, which option provides the greatest overall gain or value to the program? 

The primary purpose of the SPG process was to develop a long-term experimental plan, but in the course 

of this effort the SPG revisited, refined, and prioritized the resource goals and core monitoring 

information needs for the program. The results of this prioritization exercise, reflected in Appendix A, 

have been used to guide the development of the monitoring protocols for the individual core monitoring 

plans. The priorities and ranking provided by the SPG will be used as the primary criteria in developing 

the individual plans. The SPG also recognized the need for the GCDAMP to more explicitly define the 

goals of the AMP and desired future conditions. At the time of this writing the AMP has begun serious 

consideration of desired future conditions. However, without DFCs it is impossible to determine which of 

the core monitoring proposals meets program needs, or perhaps is beyond our needs. At the December 1, 

2009 Core Monitoring Workshop with TWG, the second highest concern was whether we can proceed 

without DFCs, and if so how and what does it mean to the program? Many of the program elements may 

not need DFCs to be approved, but others might really need them, how do we move forward? This 

question is unresolved except to say that this program can move forward in developing the individual 

plans with good trade-off analyses and risk assessments which will likely have to be revisited in an 

adaptive management framework after DFCs are established. At that point the plans can be modified to be 

TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 
TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans November 5, 2010 

more responsive to the DFCs. It is likely that without DFCs the plans will have to be broader in scope, 

and thus more costly to implement. 

Citations 

Legg, C.J. and Nagy, L. (2006) Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. J. 

Environ. Manage. 78, 194–199 

Sarah E. Johnson, E. L. Mudrak, E. A. Beever, S. Sanders, and D. M. Waller. 2008. Comparing power 

among three sampling methods for monitoring forest vegetation. Can. J. For. Res. 38(1): 143–156. 

Scott A. Field, Patrick J. O’Connor, Andrew J. Tyre, and Hugh P. Possingham. 2007. Making monitoring 

meaningful. Austral Ecology (32); 485–491