1. Preamble

1.1 Independent Review Panels and the Science Advisors Program

Glen	Canyon	Dam	Adaptive	Management	Program,	

Updated	Science	Advisors	Program	Charter	and	

Operating	Protocols,	2016	

David P. Braun, Ph.D. 

GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator 

Sound Science LLC, April 7, 2016 

Introduction

This document updates the “Operating Protocols, GCMRC Science Advisors” approved by the 

and approved wording of these two documents into an “Updated Science Advisors Program 

Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016.” 

The update also incorporates information from three other sources: 

 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review,” December, 2004, attached here as Appendix III. 

 GCDAMP Science Advisors, “Adaptive Management Work Group Briefing Paper on 

Science Advisor Appointments for 2010-2012,” AMWG meeting, August, 2009, attached 

here as Appendix IV. 

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Solicitation No. R15PS00518, Executive Coordinator 

Science Advisory Services IDIQ,” May 2015. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) Adaptive Management Work 

Group (AMWG) in December, 2000, and the “Additions to the GCDAMP Science Advisors 

Operating Protocol (12/2000)” approved by the AMWG in August, 2004. Those two documents 

are attached here as Appendixes I and II. The present document incorporates the key elements 

The 1995 Final Environmental Impact Statement (1995 FEIS) on the Operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam, Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona, led to the establishment of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program and its Adaptive Management Work Group, Technical 

Work Group (TWG), and Monitoring and Research Center, later renamed the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). The GCMRC is part of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), Southwest Biological Science Center (SBSC). 

The 1995 FEIS, pp. 37-38, further called for the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) in 

consultation with the AMWG to establish Independent Review Panel(s) (IRPs): 

“The Independent Review Panel(s) would be comprised of qualified individuals not 

otherwise participating in the long-term monitoring and research studies. The review 

panel(s) would be established by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016 page 1 of 18
                           

 

National Academy of Sciences, the tribes, and other AMWG entities. The review panel(s) 

would be responsible for periodically reviewing resource specific monitoring and 

research programs and for making recommendations to the AMWG and the center 

[GCMRC] regarding monitoring, priorities, integration, and management. 

Responsibilities of this review panel would include: 1 

 Annual review of the monitoring and research program 

 Technical advice as requested by the center [GCMRC] or AMWG 

 Five-year review of monitoring and research protocols” 

The 1995 FEIS (p. 37) also called for the center [GCMRC] to: 

 “Coordinate review of the monitoring and research program with the independent 

review panel(s)” 

The 1995 FEIS included a diagram showing the reporting relationships among the different 

components of the overall GCDAMP, reproduced here: 

The AMWG assigned to the GCMRC the responsibility for establishing the IRPs. As described 

in the December 2000 Science Advisors Operating Protocols, the GCMRC responded by: 

(1) Establishing an independent, external peer-review process for all proposals received by 

GCMRC and scientific reports resulting from GCMRC activities. 

(2)	 Initiating a contract with the National Research Council (NRC) for review of the 

GCMRC Long-term Strategic Plan and GCMRC FY 98 and FY 99 Annual Plans. This 

contract resulted in the 1999 NRC report, “Downstream: Adaptive management of Glen 

Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem.” 

1

 The December 2000 “Operating Protocols, GCMRC Science Advisors, Final,” slightly misquoted these 

responsibilities – see Appendix I. 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 2 of 18
                           

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

GCMRC’s long-term monitoring plan, 

GCMRC’s annual monitoring and research plans, 

(3)	 Developing a Protocol Evaluation Program (PEP) for reviewing long-term monitoring 

protocols. 

(4)	 Proposing to establish a general-purpose IRP to fulfill the remainder of the 

requirements identified in the 1995 FEIS, “... for periodically reviewing resource 

specific monitoring and research programs and for making recommendations to the 

AMWG and the center [GCMRC] regarding monitoring, priorities, integration, and 

management.” 

The AMWG approved the Operating Protocols for the GCMRC Science Advisors in December 

The December 2000 Operating Protocols described the functions of the Scientific Advisors as 

follows: 

The Scientific Advisors individually will be expected upon request, among other things, to 

review and comment on: 

(1) results of ongoing and completed monitoring and research program activities, as 

well as any synthesis and assessment activities initiated by GCMRC, 

(2) the appropriateness of GCMRC’s RFPs, especially their responsiveness to 

management objectives, 

(3) the protocols used in GCMRC sponsored scientific activities, including a 5-year 

review of GCMRC monitoring and research protocols, 

2000. This document established the general-purpose IRP proposed by the GCMRC and named 

this IRP, the “Scientific Advisors.” The Scientific Advisors consisted of a single standing panel, 

operating year-round, with member term limits (see below). The December 2000 operating 

protocols charged the Scientific Advisors with the same responsibilities stated in the 1995 FEIS, 

“... for periodically reviewing resource specific monitoring and research programs and for 

making recommendations to the AMWG and the center [GCMRC] regarding monitoring, 

priorities, integration, and management.” The December 2000 Operating Protocols also 

established the position of “[a]n Executive Secretary who will be an employee of, or contractor 

to the GCMRC [who] will lead the Scientific Advisors to GCMRC.” 

(4) 

(5) 

(6)	 GCMRC’s annual budget proposals, to ensure that the science program is 

efficiently and effectively responding to AMWG goals (i.e., management 

objectives), and 

(7)	 any other program specific scientific and technical advice it is asked to address 

by the AMWG, the GCMRC, or the Secretary. 

1.2	 Independent Review Panels and Science Advisors Program, 2000‐2015

The IRPs and the Science Advisors program operated continuously following their inceptions 

until the end of FY 2014. The Science Advisors program then experienced a hiatus during most 

of FY15, during which administration of the program changed hands from the GCMRC to 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 3 of 18
                           

Chair and Executive Secretary of the Science Advisors are responsible for providing all 

necessary inputs to the Chair of the AMWG by May 1 to permit development of the 

Reclamation and Reclamation contracted with a new Executive Coordinator. This hiatus did not 

affect any other IRP activities. 

The character of the IRPs and the Science Advisors program evolved between their inceptions 

and 2015 in several ways. However, the Science Advisors program Charter and Operating 

Protocols were not consistently updated to document the changes to this program. The present 

updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols documents these changes 

and incorporates additional changes associated with the transfer of administration. 

Ten changes stand out in particular between 2000 and 2015 that have implications for the present 

program and the Executive Coordinator from the GCMRC to the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Environmental Resource Division 

(Reclamation), effective with FY 2015. The Executive Coordinator remains a 

contractor. This change affects several internal procedures for the Science Advisors 

program, reflected in the present document. 

Assignment and Reporting of Science Advisor Tasks 

The Science Advisors informed the AMWG in June 2004 that the existing protocols for 

the program “do not explicitly clarify how the Advisors are to receive their list of 

annual tasks from the AMWG/GCMRC/USDI Secretary’s Designee, or report on 

accomplishments.” The Advisors therefore proposed and the AMWG approved (August 

2004) adding the following amendment to the existing Operating Protocol Document at 

the end of the section on operating procedures (page 5): “Annually the AMWG will, in 

its summer meeting, review, update and assign a general set of 24-month review tasks 

and advisory activities for the Science Advisors. The Chief of the GCMRC, TWG 

updating of the Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols: 

(1)	 Terminology 

The original terms, “Scientific Advisors” and “Executive Secretary,” in practice 

evolved into “Science Advisors” and “Executive Coordinator.” Variant terms and 

spellings also occur. The updated charter standardizes the terms. 

(2)	 Administrative Responsibility for Science Advisors Program
 

The Secretary transferred administrative responsibility for the Science Advisors 

(3) 

new Science Advisors charge. The Science Advisors or Executive Secretary are to 

present each May 15 to the Secretary’s Designee, AMWG Chair, GCMRC Chief and 

TWG Chair a written annual report of accomplishments, including specific 

documentation of Science Advisor activities. Further, the Advisors, or Executive 

Secretary, are to report to AMWG in verbal and written reports at each formal AMWG 

meeting on any review or advisory report completed since the previous AMWG 

meeting. The Science Advisors and/or the Science Advisors’ Executive Secretary will 

be available at all formal AMWG meetings to respond as needed to requests for 

information from AMWG, the Secretary’s Designee or GCMRC.” The updated charter 

incorporates this amendment. 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 4 of 18
                           

Advisor Nominations and Appointments.” The Executive Coordinator described for 

that meeting the updated criteria and process in a document, “Adaptive Management 

(4)	 Responsibility for Appointing Science Advisors 

The 1995 FEIS specified that the Independent Review Panel(s) “... would be 

established by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the National Academy 

of Sciences, the tribes, and other AMWG entities.” In practice, the GCMRC Chief and 

the Executive Coordinator for the Science Advisors established IRPs without formal 

input from the Academy. The Executive Coordinator developed recommendations for 

nominations for Science Advisors in consultation with the AMWG, TWG, and 

GCMRC, and submitted the final recommendations to the GCMRC Chief. The 

GCMRC Chief then made the final appointments and informed the AMWG. The 

updated charter recognizes that, under the terms of the new contract administered by 

consecutive three-year term (see Appendix I). The disciplines represented among the 

Science Advisors followed guidelines established by the AMWG and GCMRC. The 

GCMRC updated these guidelines in 2009, as discussed at the August 2009 AMWG 

meeting under the Agenda Item, “Science Advisor Nominations and Appointments” 

(see Appendix IV, below). The updated charter recognizes that, under the terms of the 

new contract administered by Reclamation for the Executive Coordinator effective with 

FY 2015, the Executive Coordinator instead must establish a separate panel and 

timeline for each review. The timeline for each review must include the time necessary 

for Reclamation and the Executive Coordinator to agree on a task order and for the 

Executive Coordinator to recruit the Science Advisors for the required task(s) (see 

below). 

Criteria and Process for Recruiting Science Advisors 

The GCMRC updated the criteria and process for recruiting Science Advisors in 2009, 

as also discussed at the August 2009 AMWG meeting under the Agenda Item, “Science 

Reclamation for the Executive Coordinator effective with FY 2015, the Executive 

Coordinator will make all Science Advisor appointments following a careful and 

transparent process of recruitment for each review described below. 

(5)	 Duration of Science Advisor Appointments 

The Science Advisors originally consisted of a single standing panel continuously 

available to participate in reviews and provide other advice as needed in response to 

AMWG requests. Each member served a three-year term, renewable for one 

(6) 

Work Group Briefing Paper on Science Advisor Appointments for 2010-2012.” This 

document was distributed to the AMWG as Attachment 13 to the records of that 

meeting (see Appendix IV, below). The updated charter for 2016 incorporates all 

relevant aspects of the 2009 criteria and aligns them with the guidelines established by 

the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in 2004, “Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review” for all federal governmental agencies. A copy of the OMB 

guidelines is attached to the present document as Appendix III. 

(7)	 Independent Review of Monitoring and Research Proposals 

The GCMRC initially contracted much of its monitoring and research work with 

outside partners. However, over time the center increased its own monitoring and 

research capabilities and now carries out almost all such work directly. All work 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 5 of 18
                           

 

GCDAMP monitoring and research activities as part of the Annual Reporting process. 

(10) Protocol Evaluation Program 

proposals within the GCMRC or submitted by outside collaborators undergo a review 

that follows USGS procedures under the supervision of the SBSC Deputy Center 

Director. These procedures follow USGS Fundamental Science Practices2

 that “meet or 

exceed the standards articulated by the Secretary of the Interior for DOI agencies,” as 

noted in the GCMRC FY 2010 work plan. Consequently, no additional IRP and 

external peer-review process was developed for proposals to the GCMRC. 

(8)	 Independent Review of GCMRC Reports 

GCMRC scientists must submit all reports they intend to publish, whether in a USGS 

its list of responsibilities for the IRPs, as noted above; and called for the GCMRC to 

“[c]oordinate review of the monitoring and research program with the independent 

review panel(s).” It is not clear in the 1995 FEIS whether this call for coordination 

pertained to the annual reviews, the five-year reviews (see below), or both. In practice, 

this responsibility appears to have been replaced by an annual review of GCDAMP 

monitoring and research activities by the TWG, termed the “Annual Reporting” 

meeting. The TWG conducts this meeting, which consists of presentations on all 

GCDAMP monitoring and research projects by the GCMRC and other investigators, 

and serves as the review panel. There does not appear to be any history of having an 

independent, external annual review of the monitoring and research program. The 

Science Advisors have provided reviews of specific components of the monitoring and 

research program, but only upon request rather than as a regular, annual effort. The 

updated charter, consistent with the 1995 FEIS, recognizes that the GCMRC or AMWG 

may request the Science Advisors program to conduct an independent review of 

series or in a peer-reviewed book or journal, for review through the Survey’s own 

rigorous peer review process. This process also follows USGS Fundamental Science 

Practices, which “meet or exceed the standards articulated by the Secretary of the 

Interior for DOI agencies,” as noted in the GCMRC FY 2010 work plan. Consequently, 

no additional IRP and external peer-review process was developed for scientific reports 

resulting from GCMRC activities. 

(9)	 Annual Reviews 

The 1995 FEIS included “[a]nnual review of the monitoring and research program” in 

The 1995 FEIS also included “[f]ive-year review of monitoring and research protocols” 

in its list of responsibilities for the IRPS and called for the GCMRC to “[c]oordinate 

review of the monitoring and research program with the independent review panel(s),” 

as noted above. The December 2000 Operating Protocols called for the GCMRC to 

develop the PEP, but also stated that the Science Advisors could be requested “to 

review and comment on ... the protocols used in GCMRC sponsored scientific 

activities, including a 5-year review of GCMRC monitoring and research protocols.” In 

practice, the resulting PEP has operated without routine input from the Science 

Advisors program. The GCMRC has organized the PEP reviews of all monitoring and 

research protocols, some of which were developed and implemented in cooperation 

2

 http://www.usgs.gov/fsp/faqs_general.asp 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 6 of 18
                           

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

management decisions is timely, comprehensive, efficient, unbiased, objective, and scientifically 

sound. The Science Advisors are advisory and not a decision making body. 

with other agencies.3 The updated charter, consistent with the 1995 FEIS, recognizes 

that the GCMRC or AMWG may request that the Science Advisors program assist the 

GCMRC with the planning or implementation of individual Protocol Evaluations (aka 

Protocol Evaluation Panels). 

2. Updated GCDAMP Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating

Protocols, 2016

The paragraphs below directly incorporate previously approved text describing the Science 

 GCDAMP Science Advisors, August, 2009, “Adaptive Management Work Group 

Briefing Paper on Science Advisor Appointments for 2010-2012.” 

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, May, 2015, “Solicitation No. R15PS00518, Executive 

Coordinator Science Advisory Services IDIQ.” 

2.1 Purposes of the Science Advisors Program

The Science Advisors program periodically conducts reviews of GCDAMP resource-specific 

monitoring and research programs, and carries out other advisory tasks as requested, in order to 

provide recommendations to the AMWG and the GCMRC regarding monitoring, priorities, 

integration, and management of natural, cultural, and recreational resources affected by Glen 

Canyon Dam operations. The Science Advisors program conducts reviews or carries out 

advisory tasks to: (a) ensure that the monitoring and research findings used by the AMWG and 

the Secretary in implementing the GCDAMP meet the information needs of the GCDAMP; and 

(b) ensure that the information on which the AMWG and the Secretary base their adaptive 

Advisors program purposes and operating protocols, whenever possible, consistent with the 

necessary updates. The previously approved text consists of relevant sections from the following 

four documents: 

 GCMRC, December, 2000, “Operating Protocols, GCMRC Science Advisors, Final.” 

 GCMRC, August, 2004, “Additions to the GCDAMP Science Advisors Operating 

Protocol (12/2000).” 

The Science Advisors program conducts reviews or carries out other advisory tasks on request 

from the AMWG in consultation with the GCMRC and the TWG, and delivers the resulting 

reviews or advice to the AMWG through reports and presentations. The AMWG in consultation 

with the GCMRC and TWG may request the Science Advisors program to review and provide 

advice or recommendations concerning, among other matters: 

(1)	 The results of ongoing and completed monitoring and research activities, and syntheses 

and assessments of these results, carried out to meet the information needs of the 

GCDAMP concerning natural, cultural, and recreational resources affected by Glen 

Canyon Dam operations and the effects of those operations, to evaluate whether the 

3

 Agencies cooperating in GCDAMP monitoring and research include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. 

National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Tribal 

resource management offices. 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 7 of 18
                           

	 	 	 	

The Executive Coordinator oversees and administers the activities of the Science Advisors 

best information is being provided to meet these needs, including whether the 

investigations focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to 

carry out its mission; 

(2)	 The protocols followed in monitoring and research activities carried out to meet the 

information needs of the GCDAMP, including 5-year reviews of these monitoring and 

research protocols; 

(3)	 GCMRC long-term monitoring plans, annual monitoring and research plans, and annual 

budget proposals; and 

(4)	 Any other topics for which the AMWG requests additional, independent information 

concerning resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects of those 

operations, options for managing these effects, coordination and balancing among 

resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these programs in advancing 

understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in defining and 

conducting adaptive management experiments. 

The Science Advisors program does not review, interpret, or otherwise evaluate public policy 

decisions or assess legal compliance associated with the GCDAMP and activities of the AMWG, 

TWG, GCMRC, or individual member agencies and organizations. 

2.2 Executive Coordinator of Science Advisors

An Executive Coordinator leads the Science Advisors program and serves as the liaison officer 

for the Science Advisors program to the AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC. The Executive 

Coordinator is an individual contracted by Reclamation with a demonstrated ability to manage 

science review panels, knowledge of scientific programs and methods related to the study of 

large river ecosystems, ability to work in a committee environment, and demonstrated capability 

to work in an interdisciplinary setting. The Executive Coordinator may not otherwise be a 

participant in the GCDAMP or in GCMRC monitoring and research activities. The Executive 

Coordinator administratively reports on work plans, budgets, task orders, activities, and 

deliverables to a Contracting Officer in Reclamation through a Contracting Officer 

Representative (COTR). The contract between Reclamation and the Executive Coordinator 

establishes the details of the contractual relationship between the two parties. 

program in the performance of Science Advisory task orders for specific independent reviews or 

advisory services. The Executive Coordinator ensures the completion of required Science 

Advisory tasks and the deliverables for Science Advisory task orders. The activities of the 

Executive Coordinator in turn are themselves governed by task orders. 

The duties of the Executive Coordinator may include the following. This list is representative of 

requirements, but not all-inclusive. The actual requirements will be defined in the Statement of 

Work issued for each Executive Coordinator task order. 

(1)	 Propose Science Advisors in the discipline(s) required by each task order to provide the 

review or advisory services required by the task order, following the criteria and 

process for Science Advisor Selection described below, identify the number of 

reviewers or advisors and the types of review or advisory services needed for each task 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 8 of 18
                           

(11) Coordinate and direct all Science Advisor review assignments, work tasks, and writing 

requirements. 

order, and work cooperatively with the COTR to agree upon the Science Advisors to 

work on each Science Advisory task order. 

(2)	 Enter into contracts/agreements to secure the required services of the Science Advisors 

for each Science Advisory task order and provide appropriate administration of these 

contracts/agreements including ensuring suitable performance. 

(3)	 Provide administrative support (i.e., travel, expenses, and report production) for 

Science Advisor activities. 

(4)	 

based on the Science Advisor Selection criteria for that such task orders. 

(8) Annually solicit requests for Science Advisory activities for the upcoming fiscal year 

from the AMWG and solicit additional suggestions for such activities from the TWG 

and GCMRC; compile the resulting requests and suggestions into specific potential 

review or advisory activities; and propose a prioritization (ranking) of the resulting 

potential review or advisory activities for the upcoming fiscal year. 

(9) Prepare and submit to the TWG and AMWG an annual work plan and budget for 

Science Advisors program activities in accordance with the GCDAMP budget and work 

plan schedules. 

(10) Implement the annual Science Advisors program work plan following review by the 

AMWG and GCRMC and approval by the AMWG and Secretary. 

Recommend replacements for Science Advisors as necessary in response to 

resignations, non-performance, etc. 

(5)	 Recommend the use of supplemental Science Advisors for individual Science Advisory 

task orders if necessary. 

(6)	 Develop, recommend, and coordinate Science Advisor review procedures and 

performance schedules. 

(7)	 Act as a Science Advisor when appropriate on specific Science Advisory task orders 

(12) Maintain an archive of Science Advisors program reports, meeting summaries, 

correspondence, etc., and deliver the archive to Reclamation at the end of the Executive 

Coordinator contract. 

The Executive Coordinator also must meet the following contractor requirements as specified by 

Reclamation: 

(1)	 All work and invoices must be approved in advance in the form of task orders from the 

COTR prior to work being performed. 

(2)	 Work in excess of that defined in a task order must be approved by the COTR and 

Contracting Officer prior to initiation. 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 9 of 18
                           

	 	 	 	 	 	

budget within the GCDAMP budget. 

(3)	 The contractor will work with the COTR in defining additional tasks for which a 

modification of an existing task order is required. Modifications must be authorized by 

Reclamation, must be approved by the Contracting Officer and are dependent on 

available funds. 

2.3 Annual and Multi‐Annual Work Plans

The Executive Coordinator will develop annual and multi-annual work plans as parts of the 

annual and multi-annual planning process of the GCDAMP as a whole, and develop the budget 

for the Science Advisors program in cooperation with Reclamation. The Science Advisors 

program annual work plan will include all tasks to be carried out by the Executive Coordinator, 

Executive Coordinator to assess the feasibility and potential costs of implementing the 

suggestion/request. The Executive Coordinator may also work directly with those who 

make specific requests or suggestions to help them develop a complete prospectus. 

March-April: Compile the resulting requests and suggestions into a list of specific 

potential review or advisory activities for the Science Advisors program for the 

upcoming fiscal year; assess the feasibility and potential costs of implementing the 

suggestion/request and use this information to prioritize all suggestions and requests 

(see criteria below); and consult with the AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, and Reclamation on 

the resulting prioritized list of potential reviews and advisory activities. 

April-June: Work with Reclamation and the TWG to develop a final list and ranking of 

Science Advisors program activities for the upcoming fiscal year and a budget for each 

potential activity, consistent with available funding. The budget for the Science 

Advisors program will be reviewed by the TWG as part of the overall Reclamation 

including the implementation of task orders for individual Science Advisory reviews and 

advisory services. 

The fiscal-year cycle of development of annual work plans will include the following: 

(1)	 October-March: Solicit requests or suggestions for GCDAMP review/advisory needs 

from the AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, and Secretary’s Designee for the upcoming fiscal 

year. The Executive Coordinator may ask those who make specific requests or 

suggestions to provide a written prospectus with sufficient information to enable the 

(2) 

(3) 

(4)	 June-August: Work with Reclamation, the GCMRC, and TWG to prepare the final 

proposed Science Advisors program work plan and budget for the upcoming fiscal year 

for presentation to the AMWG at its August meeting for approval. 

The Executive Coordinator will rank prospective reviews/advisory services for each upcoming 

fiscal year based on the potential for the findings to: 

	 Synthesize multiple knowledge inputs, data, methods, models, and assumptions used by 

the AMWG and the Secretary in implementing the GCDAMP; 

	 Clarify uncertainties in the available information that have the potential to affect 

adaptive management decision making within the GCDAMP, or suggest ways to reduce 

these uncertainties; 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 10 of 18
                           

	 	 	 	 	

deliverables, and budget for that Science Advisory task. The schedule for each task order will 

	 Ensure that the information on which the AMWG and the Secretary base their adaptive 

management decisions is timely, comprehensive, efficient, unbiased, objective, and 

scientifically sound; 

	 Improve the transparency of decision making within the GCDAMP; or 

	 Improve stakeholder or public perceptions of the credibility of the information on 

which the GCDAMP makes decisions. 

Five types of tasks will routinely appear in the Science Advisors program annual work plan or 

(3) The GCMRC or the AMWG may request that a panel of Science Advisors review the 

information presented at the Annual Reporting meeting. 

(4) The GCMRC or the AMWG may request that the Executive Coordinator participate in 

planning and implementing PEPs, including the selection of panel members based on 

the criteria for Science Advisor Selection (see below). 

(5) The AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, or Reclamation may request that the Executive 

Coordinator attend any of two AMWG meetings and any of 3-4 TWG meetings 

annually. 

2.4 Science Advisory Task Orders

The Science Advisors program work plan and budget for each fiscal year will identify the 

individual reviews or advisory services to be carried out in the fiscal year. Each review or 

advisory service will be implemented through a task order specifying the objectives, procedures, 

will routinely be considered for inclusion in the annual work plan when they rank highly on the 

criteria stated above: 

(1)	 The work plan for every fiscal year will include a task covering the development of the 

work plan and budget for the next fiscal year. 

(2)	 The AMWG or the GCMRC may request that the Executive Coordinator or a panel of 

Science Advisors review GCMRC long-term monitoring plans, annual monitoring and 

research plans, and/or annual budget proposals. 

allow for the time necessary for Reclamation and the Executive Coordinator to establish the 

details of the task order, for Reclamation to authorize the task order, and for the Executive 

Coordinator to recruit the Science Advisors for the required task(s) following authorization of 

the task order. 

The Executive Coordinator and Science Advisors will be reimbursed for travel expenses 

necessary to complete all task orders, including per diem for lodging, meals, and incidental 

expenses during necessary travel. Reimbursement will follow General Accounting Office (GAO) 

rules. The Science Advisors program will also provide Science Advisors with an honorarium for 

service, unless an individual Science Advisor is a federal employee or otherwise prohibited from 

receiving such compensation. The amount of this compensation will follow USGS practice. 

Science Advisors may be asked to participate in an informational river trip on the Colorado 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 11 of 18
                           

	 	 	 	

final list of Science Advisors to work on the task. 

River as part of their activity under a task order to familiarize them with the ecosystem, if/as 

appropriate for the task order. 

The Executive Coordinator will implement the Science Advisory task orders for each fiscal year, 

assemble the review or advisory panel, manage the review or advisory process, and ensure the 

timely completion and delivery of the panel report. 

2.5 Science Advisor Selection

The Executive Coordinator will follow these steps to establish the independent review or 

advisory panel for each Science Advisory task: 

(1)	 Review the selection criteria that apply to GCDAMP Science Advisors (see below) and 

of the GCDAMP to identify additional potential reviewers/advisors. 

Assemble a list of potential reviewers/advisors along with information on their 

professional title and place of work, postal and email addresses, phone number(s), web 

sites, areas of significant expertise, experience as an external reviewer, and any other 

information that will help assess their suitability for the Science Advisory task at hand. 

Ask the GCMRC and TWG to review the resulting list and provide recommendations 

on additional names to add to the list or names to remove based on official selection 

criteria (see below). 

Rank the resulting final list of potential reviewers/advisors on their appropriateness and 

potential value for the Science Advisory task at hand. 

Submit to the Reclamation COTR the list of proposed reviewers/advisors for the 

Science Advisory task at hand, and work with the COTR to mutually agree upon the 

identify additional selection criteria relevant to the Science Advisory task at hand. 

(2)	 Solicit recommendations from the AMWG, GCMRC, and TWG on additional selection 

criteria relevant to the Science Advisory task at hand, and recommendations for 

potential reviewers/advisors. 

(3)	 Consult the professional literature and seek advice from professional colleagues outside 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8)	 Contact the top-ranked individuals to determine their availability, working down the 

ranked list until the desired reviewer/advisor panel size is reached, and notify the 

AMWG, GCMRC, and TWG of the results of the selection process. 

The Executive Coordinator will select the reviewers/advisors for each Science Advisory task 

based on the following criteria, consistent with U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2004, 

“Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review” (see Appendix III, below): 

	 Expertise: All reviewers/advisors must have the knowledge, experience, and skills 

necessary to perform the review or advisory task at hand. More specifically, the 

Executive Coordinator will select reviewers/advisors with well-established scientific or 

technical expertise in disciplines central to the task at hand in accordance with 

generally accepted scientific standards as indicated by their records of publications in 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 12 of 18
                           

 

conduct (5 C.F.R §2635.101(b)). 

the peer-reviewed literature or other demonstrable scientific or technical achievements. 

All reviewers/advisors must be actively involved in the discipline(s) relevant to the task 

at hand as indicated by professional web-site and other evidence of their current 

professional status. In cases where the document being reviewed spans a variety of 

scientific disciplines or areas of technical expertise, the Executive Coordinator will 

choose reviewers who together represent the necessary spectrum of knowledge. 

work will not be affected by the outcome of the task at hand. The potential may exist 

for such dependence when there is a potential conflict of interest (see below) or a 

potential inter-dependence of interests among prospective reviewers/advisors that could 

affect the objectivity of a reviewer/advisor. 

 Collaborativeness: All reviewers/advisors must have a demonstrated ability to work 

effectively and collaboratively with other reviewers/advisors in an interdisciplinary 

environment as indicated by a record of successful participation in peer-review panels 

and similar professional service. 

The following conditions also apply: 

 Science Advisors may be drawn from federal agencies including other USGS offices, 

academia, and the private sector other than stakeholders or agencies represented on the 

GCDAMP. Federal employees will adhere to all federal rules and principles of ethical 

 Balance: A range of respected scientific and technical viewpoints may exist regarding 

the available literature and knowledge concerning the subject at hand. The Executive 

Coordinator will select reviewers/advisors to represent a diversity of scientific and 

technical perspectives relevant to the task at hand, potentially including expertise in the 

following disciplines: adaptive management; anthropology/Native American studies; 

archaeology; fisheries biology and ecology; ecosystem/riparian ecology; 

geomorphology; GIS/remote sensing; hydrology; aquatic ecology/limnology; and 

socio-economics. 

	 Independence: The Executive Coordinator will select reviewers/advisors whose own 

	 Science Advisors will not be selected or asked to serve as representatives of any 

particular agency, organization, or other stakeholder group. 

	 Science Advisors must recuse themselves from bidding on proposals funded by the 

GCDAMP for one-year after their term of service is completed. 

	 Science Advisors must not participate in any review or advisory task that presents a 

conflict of interest, and must not be a participant in the GCDAMP or in GCMRC 

monitoring and research activities. The Science Advisors program follows The National 

Academy of Sciences guidelines on conflicts of interest,4

 as recommended by the U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget, 2004, “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

4

 National Academy of Sciences, “Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of 

Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports,” May 2003: Available at: 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html. 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016	 page 13 of 18
                           

 

Review” (see Appendix III). Science Advisors will be asked to sign a “Conflict of 

Interest” statement as a requirement of their service. 

2.6 Reporting

The Executive Coordinator will present progress reports on the Science Advisory tasks in each 

fiscal year to the AMWG at its February and May meetings, and an annual report to the AMWG 

at its August meeting. The Executive Coordinator will also present progress reports on the 

Science Advisory tasks in each fiscal year to the TWG minimally at its January and June 

meetings. 

The Executive Coordinator will submit an annual report to Reclamation at the end of each fiscal 

year, covering work on all task orders active during the fiscal year. 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016 page 14 of 18
                           

	 	 	 	 	 	

Appendixes

Appendix I: December 2000 Operating Protocols

[Double-click on page image below to open document in a pdf reader] 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016 page 15 of 18
                           

Appendix	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 II: August 2004 Additions to Operating Protocol

[Double-click on page image below to open document in a pdf reader] 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016 page 16 of 18
 
                           

Appendix	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 III: OMB 2004 Federal Peer Review Guidelines

[Double-click on page image below to open document in a pdf reader] 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016 page 17 of 18
 
                           

Appendix	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 IV: August 2009 Briefing Paper on Science Advisor Appointments	 	 for
 

2010‐2012
 

[Double-click on page image below to open document in a pdf reader] 

GCDAMP Updated Science Advisors Program Charter and Operating Protocols, 2016 page 18 of 18
 
David P. Braun, Sound Science LLC

GCDAMP Executive Coordinator for Science Adv

TWG Meeting, Phoenix, AZ

April 19, 2016
Presentation outline

 Brief history of Science Advisors program Why update program’s Charter & Operating Pr Process for updating Summary of proposed update

 Sources of text comprising the updated charter Structure and key features of updated charter

 Three items for further consideration Discussion and TWG recommendation to AMW
Science Advisors origins

 SA program established 2000 as one componen

“Independent Review Panels” established by 19

& 1996 ROD, coequal with TWG and GCMRC

IRPs “... responsible for periodically

reviewing resource specificmonitoring and research programs

and for making recommendations to

the AMWG and the center [GCMRC]

regarding monitoring, priorities,

integration, and management”

(1995 FEIS)

Secret

the In

Adap

Manag

Work G

Desig

Technical

Work Group

Monito

Resear
Science Advisors, 2001‐2015

 Dr. L. David Garrett, Executive Coordinator Work plans included under GCMRC Advisors on‐call year‐round with overlapping 3‐ye

(max 2 terms)

 Conducted numerous reviews & advisory services Topics selected in consultation with GCMRC, AMW Collaborated with GCMRC on 2005 Knowledge As Charter amended 2004, 2009 to clarify protocols Dr. Garrett departs end of FY2014; brief program h Administration transferred to Reclamation, FY201
Why update SA program chart

 Amendments (2004, 2009) never incorporated int

text

 Reclamation administration requires changes, e.g.

 Advisors no longer continuously on‐call; separate pa

required for each review or service

 All actions & services require Reclamation Task Ord

 Protocols need to follow OMB (2004) standards go

selection criteria for external reviews and reviewer

 Refresh AMWG, TWG understanding of SA progra

purposes and processes

 Updating as opportunity to rethink and tinker whe
Key steps to updating SA chart

 Reviewed guiding documents (see next slide) Reviewed AMWG assessment survey findings (Ort Examined other IRPs for large multi‐institutional 

management programs for large regulated western 

 Confirmed that DOI does not have standards of practic

 Consulted with TWG, GCMRC, Reclamation COT Solicited input from previous Executive Coordinat

Science Advisors (particularly from FY 2010‐14)

 Delivered draft to TWG Steering Committee AHG 

review and recommendations

 Requesting TWG recommendation to AMWG AMWG to vote on TWG recommendation (8/2016
Guiding documents

 Original AMWG

‐approved charter and protocols, 

 AMWG

‐approved amendment, 2004

 Clarified “how the Advisors are to receive their list of 

tasks from the AMWG/GCMRC/USDI Secretary’s Dereport on accomplishments”

 AMWG

‐approved amendment, 2009

 Revised procedures for Science Advisor nominations 

appointments

 OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer R

December 2004

 Reclamation, Solicitation No. R15PS00518, Executi

Coordinator Science Advisory Services IDIQ, May 

 Editing for internal consistency and integration
Structure of charter & protoco

1. Preamble

1. Independent Review Panels and Science Advisors p

(origins)

2. Independent Review Panel and Science Advisors pr

2000‐2015 (program evolution)

2. Charter and Protocols

1. Purposes of the Science Advisors Program2. Executive Coordinator of Science Advisors3. Annual and Multi‐Annual Work Plans4. Science Advisory Task Orders5. Science Advisor Selection6. Reporting

3. Appendixes (AMWG 2000, 2004, 2009; OMB 2004
2.1 Purposes of SA program

 Review GCDAMP resource

‐specific monitoring an

research programs, and carry out other advisory ta

AMWG request to...

1. Ensure that the monitoring and research findings use

AMWG and the Secretary in implementing the GCDA

AMP needs

2. Ensure that the information on which the AMWG an

Secretary base adaptive management decisions is tim

comprehensive, efficient, unbiased, objective, and sci

sound

 Does not review, interpret, or otherwise evaluate p

policy decisions or assess legal compliance associa

the GCDAMP and activities of the AMWG, TWG, or individual member agencies and organizations
A broad mandate

 Natural, cultural, and recreational resources affected by 

Canyon Dam operations and the effects of those operat

 Results of ongoing and completed monitoring and rese

activities, and syntheses and assessments of these resu

 Protocols followed in monitoring and research activitie GCMRC long

‐term monitoring plans, annual monitori

research plans, and annual budget proposals

 Any other topics per AMWG request concerning:

 Resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations, effe

operations, options for managing these effects

 Coordination and balancing among resource programs Combined effectiveness of resource programs in advanci

understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensu

progress in defining and conducting adaptive managemeexperiments
2.2 Executive Coordinator

 Leads Science Advisors program Liaison for SA program to AMWG, TWG, GCMRC Contracted by and reports administratively to Rec

but substantively to AMWG

 All EC and SA program activities require authorizati

Reclamation task orders

 Prepares SA program work plans, budgets, task ord

proposals

 Oversees all SA program activities

 Design and implementation of all review and advisor Recruitment of review/advisory panel members Completion of SA task orders and delivery of reports
2.3 Work plans

 AMWG Action Items Recommendations for additional tasks for conside

 Input from AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, and Secretary’s  EC may propose additional tasks Work plans also cover routine tasks

 List of potential new tasks ranked in consultation 

AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, Reclamation (see next slid

 Ranked task list and costs reviewed by Reclamatio

TWG in normal cycle of planning and budgeting

 Work plan and budget included with Reclamation

 AMWG approval
Criteria for ranking potential t

 Synthesize multiple knowledge inputs, data, methods, 

and assumptions used by AMWG and Secretary in GCD

 Clarify uncertainties in available information that affec

could affect) adaptive management decision making, o

ways to reduce such uncertainties

 Ensure that information on which AMWG and Secreta

adaptive management decisions is timely, comprehens

efficient, unbiased, objective, and scientifically sound

 Improve transparency of decision making within GCDA Improve stakeholder or public perceptions of credibilit

information on which the GCDAMP makes decisions

 Financially and logistically feasible
2.4 Task orders

 SA work plans & budgets included in Reclama

work plans and budgets

 EC general duties and specific SA tasks require 

orders from Reclamation; follow Reclamation

procurement procedures

 Reclamation administers task orders for SA pr

activities approved by AMWG
2.5 Science Advisor selection

 SA panel size and selection specific to each review

task

 EC steps for selecting SA panel members:

1. Review potential selection criteria (see next slide)2. Consult AMWG, GCMRC, TWG, professional netwo

literature

3. Tabulate selection criteria, names, credentials of po

SAs

4. Solicit GCMRC, TWG review of resulting tables5. Prepare final ranked list of potential SAs6. Reclamation COTR administrative review7. Extend invitations; work down ranked list until pan8. Notify AMWG, GCMRC, TWG of result
SA core selection criteria

 Expertise

 Advisors must have well‐established scientific or technic

in disciplines central to the task at hand as indicated by t

records of publications in the peer‐reviewed literature or 

demonstrable scientific or technical achievements

 Balance

 Advisors must represent the existing diversity of scientifi

technical perspectives and spectrum of knowledge releva

task at hand

 Independence

 No advisor may have a conflicting interest in the outcom

task at hand

 Collaborativeness

 Advisors must have a demonstrated ability to work effect

collaboratively with other experts in an interdisciplinary 
2.6 Reporting

 Progress reports on SA tasks to AMP meetings

 TWG, January AMWG, February AMWG, May TWG, June

 Annual report to AMWG, August Annual report to Reclamation at end of FY
Three possible modification

1. Allow option for establishing year‐long or mu

“standing panel” for ongoing/recurring need

2. Include a step/process for approval of potent

after EC identification and ranking?

3. Include description of a procedure for amend

charter & protocols in the future?

Other suggestions?
Panel duration

 Proposed new paragraph to insert after presen

paragraph in Section 2.1:

“Science Advisors work in panels sized for efficient

completion of each review or advisory task (typica

panel members). The Executive Coordinator estab

separate Science Advisor panel for each review or aservice approved by the AMWG. However, the Exec

Coordinator may propose and the AMWG may appestablishing panels that operate over a whole‐ or m

timespan to address ongoing or recurring review/a

needs.”
SA panel member approval

 Formerly:

 GCMRC Chief approved new appointments, with in

the standing SAs, TWG, and AMWG

 Maintaining standing panel meant new appointmen

time

‐sensitive

 Currently:

 GCMRC Chief no longerresponsible for SA program Task

‐order structure means appointments always ti

sensitive

 GCMRC and TWG input on proposed ranked list of 

advisory, not same as approval

 Reclamation COTR approval: administrative only? EC (Sound Science) therefore makes final decisions 

panel members for each task order
SA panel member approval

(con

 Should charter/protocols include

a final step f

panel member approval?

 Approvals may be time

‐sensitive

 Option: change item “(6)” in Section 2.5 to:

“(6) Rank the resulting draft final list of potential

reviewers/advisors on their appropriateness and p

value for the Science Advisory task at hand and su

ranked list to the GCMRC and TWG for final revieapproval. Requests for approval may be time

‐sensi

Executive Coordinator will resolve any differences 

responses between the GCMRC and TWG.”
Process for amending docume

 Proposed addition of

a final Section 2.7:

“

2.7 Amending the Charter and Protocols

Changes to this charter or its protocols may be pro

the TWG, which will then review each proposal an

to the AMWG any recommendations for changes. 

Executive Coordinator must provide recommenda

the TWG on each proposal for its consideration du

review. Reclamation must review all proposed cha

ensure that they are consistent with Reclamation

requirements as administrator of the Science Advi

program, and convey its findings to the AMWG. A

amendments require approval by the AMWG, whicrequest further information from the TWG, GCMR

Executive Coordinator for its deliberations.”
Questions & Discussio