Difference between revisions of "Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC)"

2016 LTEMP ROD

The GCMRC will continue as one of the elements of GCDAMP, consistent with and for the purposes of the 1992 GCPA. The GCMRC will continue to function as a long-term monitoring and research center as was envisioned with its establishment in 1995 to provide scientific advice to GCDAMP, including the Secretary of the Interior, his/her designee, DOI managers, and AMWG. The Assistant Secretary for Water and Science or his/her designee, the Director of USGS or his/her designee, the Commissioner of Reclamation and his/her designee, and the Director of the NPS and his/her designee shall continue to provide policy and programmatic guidance to the GCMRC Chief and review the policies and protocols that govern the operations of GCMRC at least every 5 years. The GCRMC leads the coordination of the monitoring and research of the CRE and facilitates communication and information exchange between GCDAMP, including scientists, DOI, AMWG, Technical Working Group (TWG), and the Science Advisors Program. The GCMRC will be independent from any single stakeholder within the AMWG. The GCMRC will continue conducting monitoring and research activities as guided by the LTEMP FEIS and ROD priorities and commitments. The administrative responsibilities of GCMRC will continue to include managing resource data, reporting monitoring and research results, administering contracts and developing annual research and monitoring reports, and providing technical resource advice related to the GCPA. [1]

2008 Report from the Roles Ad Hoc Group [2]

GCMRC participation in Ad Hoc Groups

GCMRC is the only AMP element that is expected to serve on every ad hoc committee appointed by the TWG or the AMWG. While the GCMRC recognizes that it must be an active participant on these ad hoc committees, the situation has at times put overwhelming pressure on GCMRC staff due to workload issues. GCMRC does, in fact, want to be a full partner with the AMP participants, but these participants must also be sensitive to GCMRC time limitations.

As a general rule, GCMRC will participate in all AMWG, TWG, and Ad Hoc Committee meetings, as appropriate. In the event this is not possible, GCMRC will so communicate to the Chair of the relevant committee in advance of the meeting.

A common understanding of and sensitivity to the workload issue is vital to an efficient and effective AMP process. The 1-year schedule referred to in Issue #5, which shows the essential items that the AMP must do each year, will assist in managing and planning for the GCMRC workload. Any additional task will involve a decision as to whether it can be done in the timeframe requested by AMWG.

In addition, the process described in Issue #6, which allows the GCMRC to resolve concerns about their workload, will ameliorate this problem.

As noted above, when TWG is given an assignment from AMWG, the GCMRC would also usually be involved. Therefore, an AMWG action to a recommendation to the Secretary may be needed to secure GCMRC involvement.

GCMRC focus and deliverables

GCMRC efforts will focus on the most important work products. These may include fieldwork, contracting, budget, SCORE reports, and AMWG/TWG briefings. GCMRC’s activities and deliverables are defined in the MRP and BWP. GCMRC will develop a report for each project in the BWP at the end of each fiscal year. This report will document accomplishments and expenditures, as well as shortfalls, with recommendations for change.

GCMRC workload

When requesting or recommending GCMRC take on a task, the AMP needs to be realistic in setting deadlines and should more carefully consider the work capacity and timeframe involved. In addition, from time to time, clarity of assignment is an issue, when GCMRC feels they have delivered a product on time and AMWG or TWG may say they are late because the product is not what they thought they requested.

GCMRC budget latitude and accountability

Some feel the GCMRC does not want to be responsive to the needs of the AMP. There are no clearly defined limits of flexibility on GCMRC’s management of science projects without going back to AMWG or DOI for approval. Some AMP members feel that GCMRC appears to have made unilateral changes in approved documents, work plans, and budgets without communicating with AMWG, which has reduced the level of trust between AMP members and GCMRC.

It is imperative to the success of the AMP that a positive, affirmative, and accountable relationship exists between GCMRC and the AMWG. One of the challenges presented in this regard is the fact that the AMWG only meets two to three times per year and therefore cannot always address issues quickly, including urgent budgetary issues. When GCMRC makes needed budget adjustments, AMWG might perceive such actions as constituting unilateral and unauthorized changes by GCMRC to approved budgets and research plans.

The GCMRC will give periodic updates on its operations and budget to the Secretary’s Designee, AMWG, and TWG, including an annual accomplishments report, semi-annual budget reports, and reports on projects that have been deferred or significantly delayed. The BWP will include contingency projects that will be funded if surplus funds arise. GCMRC has the latitude to make budget adjustments of up to 5 percent of its total budget to accomplish work specified in the BWP. No new AMP projects will be implemented by GCMRC or Reclamation without first consulting with the TWG chair and vice-chair and the Secretary’s Designee. The Secretary’s Designee will determine whether consultation with the AMWG is needed.

Contracting

The AMWG is concerned that GCMRC has drifted in recent years from full compliance with the original and long-standing agreement that it use an open, competitive process to award research contracts or to enter into cooperative or interagency agreements for scientific work in support of the AMP. GCMRC acknowledges that competitive procedures were not used in the recent mechanical removal and experimental high flow studies due to time and logistical constraints arising from the time it took to complete the environmental compliance in juxtaposition with when work had to be underway in the field. This was not intended to be a repudiation or abandonment of the long-term agreement to openly compete much of the scientific work of the AMP.

The foundational documents provide some direction, and some flexibility, to GCMRC with regard to contracting:

The following specific duties would be assigned to the Monitoring and Research Center:...Administer research proposals through a competitive contract process, as appropriate (Department of the Interior, 1995, p. 37).

The Center ... shall be composed of a small staff of administrative and scientific personnel, who will be detailed from other Department bureaus. The research program is proposed to be conducted through an open call proposal and (or) contract process, including a competitive request for proposals, with Federal and state agencies, universities, the private sector, and Native American tribes which will result in the selection of research projects based on scientific merit and cost. Required elements of the monitoring program may be proposed as an on-going responsibility of the USGS after an open decision-making process (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, 1995, p. 2).

The GCMRC shall be composed of an appropriately sized staff of administrative and scientific personnel with relevant scientific and technical expertise... Monitoring and research activities Report and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s Designee Page 22 conducted by GCMRC will be implemented primarily through a competitive request for proposals with Federal and state agencies, universities, the private sector, and Native American tribes. The successful proposals shall be selected on the basis of advice provided by an independent external scientific peer-review (Schaefer, 2000, p. 2).

Other functions of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center are ... Develop research designs and proposals for implementing (by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center or its contractors) monitoring and research activities in support of information needs; ... (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2002, p. 5).

Bob Snow (Washington Solicitor’s Office) ... reviewed his understanding of the concerns ... [to wit,] if the procurement requirements had changed from using different entities to do work in the Grand Canyon towards a concentration of research being done by GCMRC. Bob said the Department has an opportunity to either avail itself of its in-house resources or ask external groups, cooperators, etc., to take on those tasks. The fact that there is an ongoing FACA process does not change the fundamental nature of being able to task USGS within their organic statutory authority to take on certain studies (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2004, p. 10). The use of contractors versus in-house staff by GCMRC is clarified in the Strategic Science Plan that was approved by the AMWG on December 5, 2006:

Contractors and cooperators will be utilized to conduct a large measure of the field work and work collaboratively with GCMRC on data analysis, synthesis, and publication. GCMRC scientists will be engaged in the implementation of field research and monitoring when in-house staff with the appropriate expertise is available and their use is cost effective. In every case the USGS will hold its own proposals to the same level of rigorous outside peer review as all others. Several land and resources management agencies including National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), and the Tribes have statutory or regulatory responsibilities for long-term management of resources in the Grand Canyon. In addition, USGS, the parent organization of GCMRC, includes many leading experts in river science.

Collectively, these agencies/entities have technical skills and capabilities that can assist in conducting some of the work being recommended by the AMP. These entities are an integral part of several resource monitoring efforts, including monitoring of humpback chub and other native fishes, rainbow trout and other nonnative fishes, hydrology and sediment, archaeological resources, and traditional cultural properties. Having these agencies/entities as active partners in the AMP science program helps meet their statutory responsibilities and facilitates the integration of the scientific information into management processes and decisions. The services of these agencies and entities are generally secured through interagency and cooperative agreements, rather than through competitive RFPs.

No matter who carries out the work of the AMP, Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs) are used to provide an independent scientific perspective on the efficacy of all major elements of the science program, including the scope, objectives, methods, past performance, and recommended future direction of science projects. PEP reviews are used to help design new research programs and to evaluate the ongoing work of established projects. In addition, peer reviews of proposals and deliverables provide independent review of specific AMP scientific efforts to ensure high scientific quality.

The purpose of open competition through RFPs is to promote cost effectiveness, expanded breadth of ideas, optimal scientific design, and highest levels of scientific expertise. However, this process takes more time, effort, and cost to achieve these objectives. The scientific protocols as described above will contribute to accomplishing many of the same scientific objectives.

The most cost effective mechanisms will be used to accomplish work. In general, GCMRC and Reclamation will prepare RFPs and use an open, competitive process for awarding funding for new research projects or new initiatives (e.g., food base monitoring and research, near shore ecology). For other projects, limited competition, and sole-source contracts in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations may be used IF cooperators agree to (a) conduct the required work at a fair cost, verified through market research, (b) meet the required technical specifications as determined by GCMRC and implement PEP and SA recommendations accepted by the AMWG and approved by the Secretary, and (c) comply with independent peer review requirements established by GCMRC. Annual evaluations will ensure cooperators are meeting these requirements. GCMRC scientists may conduct field research and monitoring under the same conditions, particularly in time-sensitive cases where a formal RFP or other competitive contracting mechanism would not be practicable. In every case, the USGS will hold its own proposals to the same level of rigorous outside peer review as all others.

GCMRC will provide appropriate opportunities for agencies with statutory responsibilities to be involved in the science development and contracting or agreement process. GCMRC and Reclamation will annually report to AMWG on how much, by percentage, of their science was contracted through open competitive process and how much was accomplished through each of the other mechanisms (sole source contract, interagency agreement, performed in-house, etc.).

GCMRC compliance

There is an open question about whether and/or to what degree GCMRC’s science activities are having adverse impacts on cultural and natural resources of the Colorado River ecosystem. This question has raised the expectation that USGS should be involved in developing and be a signatory to environmental compliance documents covering science activities. However, USGS policy restricts agency involvement in policy issues (such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documents), believing that this protects the agency’s ability to function as an impartial science provider.

GCMRC will ensure that any negative impacts from AMP-related research activities are monitored, documented, and addressed in a timely fashion in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. GCMRC will address NEPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Historic Protection Act (NHPA) compliance, and NPS/Tribal research permitting processes, among others, and the resultant permits can include conditions, restrictions, and mitigation as needed. Such requirements will be considered by DOI when deciding whether to proceed with the proposed actions.

Protocol Evaluation Panels

Some AMP members believe that fear of causing conflict or ill will is a factor influencing the quality of feedback from the Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs). Therefore, this feedback is not always as clear and definitive as the AMP desires and needs. AMP members want to ensure that the charge to each PEP clearly spells out what is desired and expected from the PEP panel.

As part of the Core Monitoring Evaluation process outlined in the MRP, a TWG information needs workshop will occur prior to each PEP which will provide more specific guidance from stakeholders on what needs should be addressed by the PEP.

It is the responsibility of GCMRC to develop the charge to an upcoming PEP. Once the PEP charge and informational documents have been drafted, they will be sent by GCMRC to the Secretary’s Designee, the SAs, the TWG Chair, and the Reclamation Program Manager for review and comment before they are finalized and presented to the PEP Chair. The reviewers will evaluate the documents for completeness and clarity, and return their comments, if any, to GCMRC within 15 days of receipt. GCMRC will finalize the documents and distribute them to the Secretary’s Designee, the SAs, the TWG Chair, and the Reclamation Program Manager.

PEP reports will provide majority or consensus views of the panel members. Where consensus is not reached, minority views will be documented in the report.

Science performed by other agencies From time to time, it has been suggested that science support should be obtained through other science organizations. In addition, some AMP stakeholders perform research, monitoring, or management activities that could have an impact, positive or negative, on the AMP and its work, and these activities are not always known to AMWG or the GCMRC.

AMP foundational documents specify that GCMRC is the selected provider and coordinator of research for the AMP. The EIS defines the authority and responsibility for conduct of research by the AMP as follows:

All adaptive management research programs would be coordinated through the Center (Reclamation, 1995, p. 36).

Authorities and responsibilities for GCMRC are also documented in the AMP Strategic Plan: The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center serves as the science center for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2002, p. 5).

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center leads the monitoring and research of the Colorado River ecosystem and facilitates communication and information exchange between scientists and members of the Technical Work Group and Adaptive Management Work Group (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2002. p. 5).

Expanded science and management activities are being implemented by AMP, as well as by its member agencies, tribes, and other cooperators. Knowledge by all parties of these various activities is important to effectively manage the AMP.

GCMRC has approved protocols and procedures for responding to AMP science information needs through its own staff and by contracting with entities external to AMP. If AMWG wishes to advance certain areas of the program more rapidly, it should identify those priorities to the Secretary’s Designee. If approved by the Secretary’s Designee, GCMRC will develop a plan to resolve those concerns in the next 12-month period, perhaps through an accelerated timeline of contracted work with external entities.

With regard to science or management activities performed by other agencies and not contracted by GCMRC, it would be to the benefit of the AMP and the other programs if all information about science and management activities in the CRE were shared. Therefore, land and resource management agencies and other AMP stakeholders are annually invited and encouraged to notify Reclamation of all such activities, so they can be included in the BWP. Information about these activities will be incorporated into the AMP work plan and budget development process.

2001 Strategic Science Plan

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center leads the monitoring and research of the Colorado River ecosystem and facilitates communication and information exchange between scientists and members of the Technical Work Group and Adaptive Management Work Group. Other functions of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center are:

• Advocate quality, objective science, and the use of that science in the adaptive management decision process;
• Provide scientific information about resources in the Colorado River ecosystem;
• Support the Secretary of the Interior’s Designee and the Adaptive Management Work Group in a technical advisory role;
• Develop research designs and proposals for implementing (by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center or its contractors) monitoring and research activities in support of information needs;
• Coordinate review of the monitoring and research program with independent review panels;
• Coordinate, prepare, and distribute technical reports and documentation for review and as final products;
• Prepare and forward technical management recommendations and annual reports, as specified in Section 1804 of the Grand Canyon Protect Act, to the Technical Work Group;
• Manage data collected as part of the Adaptive Management Program and serve as a repository for other information about the Colorado River ecosystem;
• Administer research proposals through a competitive contract process, as appropriate;
• Develop, with the Technical Work Group, criteria and standards for monitoring and research programs; and
• Develop, with the Technical Work Group, resource management questions (i.e., information needs).
• Produce the State of the Colorado River Ecosystem Report. [3]

• Grand Canyon Research and Monitoring Center (GCMRC) homepage
• Knowledge Assessments, Annual Reporting Meetings, and SCORE Reports Page

• Managing Data Resources and Online Content for GCMRC & GCDAMP
• Managing Data Resources and Online Content for GCMRC & GCDAMP
• Modernizing data telemetry efforts for important riparian resources in Grand Canyon
• Automating Sensor-to-Cloud Workflows for Riparian Resources in Grand Canyon
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities Occurred or Planned From January 1 to the end of October 2022
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities Occurred or Planned For Calendar Year 2021
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities Occurred or Planned for Calendar Year 2021
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities Occurred or Planned January 1 through June 2021
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities, January-December 2020
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities, Postponed or Cancelled April-August 2020
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities Cancelled or Postponed through June 2020
• GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities, June through September 2020
• Southwest Biological Science Center staff, 2019, The U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center—Sound science to serve the American southwest: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2019-3041, 4 p.
• Memo from Dr. Jack Schmidt to the TWG Dated October 18, 2011, Subject: Thoughts about the GCDAMP and GCMRC's Role in That Program
  
• Reports Tracking Update --> GCMRC Publications Fiscal Year 2010
• AIF: 1) GCMRC Updates; Proposed April 13-15, 2010 Integrated Modeling Workshop at Saguaro Lake Ranch, AZ
• Final Agenda for the Integrated Modeling Workshop