Difference between revisions of "Science Advisors"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 72: Line 72:
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
  
−
*http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=PEP_reviews Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs) page
+
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=PEP_reviews Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs) page]
  
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 11:36, 9 May 2018
  • AMPorganization.jpg

Science Advisors

Independent Review Panels, as called for in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (Reclamation 1995:38), are comprised of qualified individuals not otherwise participating in the long-term monitoring and research studies. The panels include peer reviewers, science advisors, and protocol evaluation panels whose primary responsibility is to assess the quality of research, monitoring, or science being conducted by the Adaptive Management Program and to make recommendations to improve it. Responsibilities of the panels include:

  • Reviewing Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program monitoring and research programs and protocols;
  • Providing reports based on their review to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Technical Work Group, and Adaptive Management Work Group;
  • Making recommendations and providing advice to the Adaptive Management Work Group, Technical Work Group, and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center regarding science activities;
  • Assessing proposed research plans and programs, technical reports and publications, and other program accomplishments; and
  • Conducting five-year reviews of Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center monitoring and research protocols. [1]
Justification
-- 		Scope
-- 		Organization
--

Science Advisors

Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs)

Presentations and Papers

2018

2017

2016

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2000

Goals

  • 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."

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)
Retrieved from "http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Science_Advisors&oldid=7767"