Difference between revisions of "Science Advisors"

The Executive Coordinator is contractor to Reclamation

• Maintains a Standing Panel of Advisors (aka Expert Panel)
• Schedules Independent Review Panel(s) if/as needed
• Helps with Knowledge Assessments (3-year process)
• Has routine interactions with Reclamation, GCMRC, TWG, AMWG

(FY 2018-2020 TWP, Reclamation Budget Item C.4)

David P. Braun, Ph.D.
Executive Coordinator for Science Advisors, U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program,
and Senior Associate, Sound Science, LLC
www.sound-science.org
[email protected]
(973) 568-7676
Skype: david.p.braun (timezone=Eastern U.S.)

Five-person “blue-ribbon” panel

• Replaces/updates former Science Advisors panel (FY01-14)
• Three-year (FY) terms of office, not staggered

FY18-20 Expert Panel tasks (planned)

• Review GCMRC annual reports, annual reporting meeting presentations (FY18, 19, 20), annual work plans (FY 19, 20)
• Advise, review triennial Knowledge Assessment (FY 19-20)
• Review next draft Triennial Work Plan and Budget (FY20)
• Advise on possible external IRPs (if/as needed)
• Advise on recruitment of next 3-year (FY21-23) cohort of Expert Panel (FY20)

Current Status

Updating operating protocols

• Based on AMP-approved GCMRC procedures FY01-14
• Updating for Reclamation administration
• Reclamation now reviewing recommendations

Identifying disciplinary areas of expertise needed

• NOT just sciences; all key areas of knowledge that inform adaptive management
• Reclamation will make final selection; suggestions welcome

Identifying and recruiting panel members

• To begin once disciplinary needs set; nominations welcome
• Candidate review process to follow FY01-14 guidelines as applicable
• Reclamation will make final selection

Next Steps

Identify disciplinary areas of expertise needed

• End of February?
• Reclamation will establish review team

Finish updating operating protocols (February-March) Nominations

• Mid-March or longer (?)
• Reclamation will establish review team
• Recruiting, March-April
• Orientation, late April?
• Review GCMRC FY 2017 Annual Report, 2018 Annual Reporting Meeting content, April-May [2]

• Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs) page
• Knowledge Assessments page
• Administrative History page

• Independent review of NPS “Bright Angel Creek Comprehensive Nonnative Trout Control 5-year Assessment, 2012-2017” draft final report to Reclamation
• Independent review of September 2017 Brown Trout workshop final report
• 2016 Fisheries PEP
• 2016 Knowledge Assessment

2018

• Science Advisors Program: FY18-20 Work Plan; FY18 Activities; and FY19 Plan PPT
• Science Advisors Program Work Plan for FY 2018 and Beyond PPT

2017

• Science Advisors Program Update and PPT
• Science Advisors Program Update

2016

• Science Advisors Program ̶ 2016 Accomplishments and 2017 Plans
• Science Advisors Charter and Protocols Government to Government Consultations Update
• GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016
• GCDAMP: Science Advisors-Executive Coordinator Program Work Plan for FY16
• Protocol Evaluation Panels

2014

• Science Advisors Report
• Science Advisors Recommendations on Review of GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan
• Memo from Dave Garrett to the TWG Chair dated May 19, 2014, Subject: Science Advisor Review Comments on GCMRC Science Plan

2013

• Science Advisors' Annual Report

2012

• Science Advisors' Annual Report (USGS Service Contract) and PPT

2011

• Pages 269-271 of FY 2012 Budget and Workplan: ADM 12.A4.11,12(B) Coordination and Review of Services Provided by Science Science Advisors
• A Review of the GCMRC Report on An “Analysis of Biophysical and Socio-Cultural Impacts of Four Experimental Options”
• FY2010 Science Advisors Program Report to the GCDAMP and PPT

2010

• Memo from Dr. Dave Garrett to John Hamill, Subject: Science Advisor Program Proposed Budget Reductions 2010/2012
• Fiscal Year 2009 Science Advisors Program Report to GCDAMP PPT
• AIF: Science Advisors Progress Report on Assessment of Criteria for Management Actions and PPT

2009

• Prospectus-Evaluation of a Transition in the Roles of Science and Management During the Evolution of Adaptive Management Programs
• of a Transition in the Roles of Science and Management During the Evolution of Adaptive Management Programs; Corresponding PPT
• “Review of Geoarchaeological Investigation and an Archaeological Treatment Plan for 151 Sites in the Grand Canyon, Arizona” by the GCDAMP Science Advisors
• AIF: Science Advisor Nominations and Appointments; Briefing Paper on Science Advisor Appointments for 2010-2012; Presentation to AMWG of Selections for Science Advisors Specialists for 2010-2012 PPT
• AIF: Defining Management Actions
• Defining Management Actions PPT
• AIF: Science Advisor Nominations and "Strategy for Science Advisor Expertise to Respond to Emphasis Areas of the GCDAMP; 2009-2013" PPT
• Letter from the Seven Colorado River Basin States Representatives to the GCDAMP, dated 2/23/98, Subject: Decision Making Process Associated with the GCD Operations GCDAMP
• Strategy for Science Advisor Areas of Expertise to Respond to Emphasis Areas of the GCDAMP; 2009-2013
• Key Discussion Points from Meeting of GCMRC and its Senior Ecologist with Science Advisors on Ecosystem Approaches in Science PPT

2000

• GCMRC-USGS role in the GCDAMP
• 2000-03-31 DOI Memo: GCMRC- Institutional Home

• FROM: Anne Castle
• DATE: March 31, 2011
• RE: "GCMRC Science Planning"

1. "Our first and foremost priority is compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which means focus on the native fish and particularly the humpback chub.
2. "Second, we need to focus on sediment, which was an instigating factor for the Grand Canyon Protection Act and continues to be an issue with resources down stream of the dam..."
3. "Third, and these are competing priorities, we need science on both non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery.
4. "These are the primary areas where I have asked GCMRC to concentrate its resources."

• PEP Reviews

Science Learning Page

• "We need a science that empowers decision makers to develop a comprehensive vision of how a future Colorado River can function."
• "We have the ability to recreate any kind of a river we want. We just have to decide what we want and where we want it, and to decide if we want to pay for it.(JSchmit_SDM-workshop_Aug 2013)

• GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016
• GCDAMP: Science Advisors-Executive Coordinator Program Work Plan for FY16
• GCMRC-USGS role in the GCDAMP
• 2000-03-31 DOI Memo: GCMRC- Institutional Home

• 
• LINK: usbr/amwg/mtgs/13feb20/Attach_07b.pdf

• Although meta-analysis is a useful way of summarizing knowledge, the strength of inference depends on the quality of the data, and cause-and-effect cannot be established solely from correlative analyses. [3]