Difference between revisions of "Science Advisors"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 239: Line 239:
 
*"We need a science that empowers decision makers to develop a comprehensive vision of how a future Colorado River can function."   
 
*"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)
 
*"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)
 +
 +
*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. [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70187999]

Revision as of 14:45, 12 July 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

Executive Coordinator is contractor to Reclamation (David P. Braun, Sound Science LLC)

  • 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)

SAP Expert Panel, FY 2018-2020

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]

Links

Projects

  • 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

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=8155"