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 Colorado River 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