Science Advisors

---

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 Science Advisors Program is administered by Reclamation 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)

Links Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs) page Knowledge Assessments page Administrative History page Presentations and Papers 2018 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 “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 2000 GCMRC-USGS role in the GCDAMP 2000-03-31 DOI Memo: GCMRC- Institutional Home Goals FROM: Anne Castle DATE: March 31, 2011 RE: "GCMRC Science Planning" "Our first and foremost priority is compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which means focus on the native fish and particularly the humpback chub. "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..." "Third, and these are competing priorities, we need science on both non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery. "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)