GENERAL CORE MONITORING PLAN 

LIST OF MAJOR TWG ISSUES TO BEGIN CONSIDERATION 

November 30, 2009 

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). 

Examples: 

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, 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 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)” 

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 

10. 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 

11. 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. 

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

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

13. 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 

14. We lack information on trade-offs between statistical precision and sampling intensity that will drive 

costs, these analyses should drive our decision making 

15. 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. 

DFCs 

16. 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? 

SCOPE OF MONITORING 

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

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

plan 

19. CMP should be focused on monitoring for dam operations 

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

emphasis on inventory programs is needed 

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