Difference between revisions of "PEP reviews"

The PEP external review panels are composed of subject experts derived from academia, independent research institutions, government agencies, or private consulting firms. GCMRC solicits potential reviewers from a national (and sometime international) pool of candidates and establishes a list of potential reviewers by discipline during the scoping phases of the project. Membership is determined competitively on the basis of expertise and on willingness and availability to participate within the scheduled time line of a given PEP.

Following the selection of PEP members (3–6 persons per phase/program area), the panel is provided with copies of presentations/reports on assessments of existing data, results of field testing, and critical reviews of trial implementation projects. PEP members then participate in a multiday workshop and/or field expedition where they receive additional information about the work that has been conducted to date, have ample opportunity to review the field conditions and logistical constraints of each program, and can interact informally with the other panel members and previous monitoring project participants. The field trip/workshop is then followed by a 2–3 day panel retreat, where panel members work out their initial ideas and recommendations and formalize them in one or more reports to GCMRC. The panel selects a chair person who becomes the final spokesperson for the PEP and presents the results to GCMRC and the TWG at a later date. Panel members will often meet a second time or convene additional working meetings via conference calls before the PEP report is finalized A key component of each PEP report consists of recommendations to the GCMRC chief and the science advisors (a group of independent experts in various disciplines that also review the science program annually and may, to some degree, participate in some of the PEP reviews) on what changes in monitoring protocols are warranted. The results of each PEP evaluation are reviewed by the science advisors and then by the TWG, and comments are forwarded to the GCMRC chief for consideration before any new or modified monitoring procedures are implemented by program managers, typically through a competitive RFP-driven process.

For any given resource/program area, there are likely to be at least two, and often three PEP reviews held throughout the development of each core monitoring project: (1) at the initial outset of developing the program, (2) following completion of initial R&D efforts, and/or (3) following completion of a pilot testing phase. In drafting the original prospectus for the PEP, the GCMRC identified the following issues to be important considerations in the design of future monitoring programs:

1. Articulate Management Objectives/Information Needs, and Current Protocols

It is critical to have a clear and detailed understanding of present stakeholder-derived management objectives and information needs. In addition to describing information needs and objectives, past and presently used monitoring protocols need to be clearly articulated on the basis of existing literature and discussions with present/former project chiefs and PIs who conducted monitoring and research during phases I and II of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES, 1983 through 1996), and subsequently. Information on existing protocols, including methods sections of reports and articles that describe various monitoring approaches used in the CRE or other rivers, must be reviewed and made available to external review panels and scoping workshop participants in advance of all PEP workshops or meetings. This information is collected, compiled and distributed by program managers during the scoping phase of the PEP.

2. Define the Range of Optional Alternatives Under Existing Technologies

Alternatives to existing protocols are identified by in-depth GCMRC scoping of monitoring techniques currently used in other long-term programs for river ecosystems. Methodologies used in monitoring of other ecosystems (that is, near coastal marine settings, forests, etc.) are also considered where the protocols might be adapted to a large river.

The PEP scoping process is intended to be wide-ranging, and will glean information from multiple sources such as, reports, journal articles, professional presentations, and displays at professional meetings. Attending national meetings frequented by ecosystem-monitoring experts, and conferences that attract technological innovators by GCMRC staff is encouraged as a means of conducting pre-workshop scoping activities. To increase the effectiveness of the PEP, the limitations and capabilities of new technologies of interest must be screened against information needs by the GCMRC/PEP planning team in advance of the first workshop. New technologies that hold great promise, but are mismatched with stakeholder/GCMRC information needs should be identified and eliminated. This will hopefully eliminate consideration of inappropriate new protocols early in the process. In cases where innovation has led to new approached not recognized by stakeholders, the PEP can act to update managers on areas where new information could be easily obtained. Agencies and private-sector firms identified through the scoping process may be invited to the PEP workshop(s) for demonstration and discussions of new methods and technologies.

Regardless of the diversity of monitoring approaches considered, other topics such as replication, sampling interval and spatial distribution for a long-term monitoring program also need to be evaluated. For instance, information from recent high-flow experiments suggests that monitoring data on grain-size evolution of channel-stored sediment may significantly influence management decision making, but tracking changes in grain-size had not previously been a component of physical-resource monitoring.

3. Evaluation/Selection of Protocols to be Implemented

The PEPs aim to identify which of the past, currently used, or new but untested protocols best meet the objectives of a long-term monitoring program. The program aims to design a river-monitoring program with protocols capable of assessing long-term ecosystem trends, as well as being able to document the impacts of discreet events, such as high-flows from GCD. Protocols must also be able to provide information to stakeholders in a timely manner useful for supporting the adaptive management process (recommendations to the Secretary of Interior). The selected protocols also must work within the unique settings of the CRE, be minimally intrusive to the environment, demonstrate cost effectiveness, stand as scientifically defendable, provide suitable accuracy/precision (depending on level of information need), and be highly repeatable and reproducible regardless of changes in contractors over time. Most importantly, the selected approaches must directly address the management objective-derived stakeholder information needs.

Where existing data occur in the databases of the GCMRC or its former/present cooperators, initial evaluations will be undertaken internally by staff members and scientists already involved in monitoring under existing agreements. However, existing datasets that may foster comparative assessment will only be analyzed after the articulation and scoping steps have been accomplished. Any assessments conducted on existing data will be subjected to internal and external review and will be presented and discussed during initial workshop(s). The PEP process also recognizes that new information gained from experiments, such as controlled high releases from GCD, as well as evolving information needs, will likely drive additional new needs for monitoring methods of the CRE through time. Therefore, although the PEP may have formal start and end dates, the GCMRC mission will require program managers, stakeholders and the science Advisors to revisit the long-term monitoring strategy (including individual protocols) on a periodic basis. GCMRC proposes that is occur as a 5-year review cycle.

• 2017 Water Quality PEP
• 2016 Fish Monitoring Program PEP
• 2009 Fish Monitoring Program PEP
• 2006 Physical Resources PEP
• 2005 Recreation Monitoring Program PEP
• 2004 Foodbase PEP
• 2001 Aquatic PEP
• 2000 Lees Ferry PEP
• 2000 Cultural Resources Program PEP
• 1999 Physical Resources PEP

• Description of the Scientific Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) Review Process (Core Monitoring Plan, Appendix C)
• 2012 Desired Future Conditions
• GCDAMP Monitoring and Research Planning Page