Background

Sound Science has reviewed past SA-EC annual work plans and program procedures to ensure 

program continuity. From this review, Sound Science has determined that SA-EC annual work 

Glen	Canyon	Dam	Adaptive	Management	Program	

Science	Advisors‐Executive	Coordinator	Program	

Work	Plan	for	FY	2016	

David P. Braun, Ph.D., and Robert S. Unnasch, Ph.D. 

Sound Science LLC, January 28, 2016 

Introduction

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) arranges for Sound Science LLC to carry out the 

the proposed work plan for FY 2016. While this consultation took place, Reclamation requested 

that Sound Science prepare an initial work plan and budget covering activities in December 2015 

through February 2016 to ensure that the SA-EC could attend the January TWG meeting and 

February AMWG meeting. The resulting Task Order #2 allows Sound Science to maintain its 

momentum on the activities needed for FY 2016. A separate Task Order, #3, covers Sound 

Science assistance to the GCMRC to organize and carry out the Fisheries Protocol Evaluation 

Panel in FY 2016. Task Order #4 covers the SA-EC program of work for March 1 through 

September 30, 2016. 

The present document integrates the plans from Task Orders #2-#4 in one place, to provide a 

single statement of the SA-EC plan of work for FY 2016. 

responsibilities of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCD AMP) Science 

Advisor (SA) Executive Coordinator (EC) program through contractual Task Orders for specific 

tasks. Task Order #1 had two deliverables: (1) an annual report on SA program activities in FY 

2015; and (2) a SA-EC program work plan for FY 2016 for Reclamation review and approval. 

Sound Science submitted both deliverables on November 17, 2015. Reclamation subsequently 

determined that it needed to consult with the rest of the leadership of the GCD AMP to confirm 

plans typically accomplish four things, within the limits of funding: (1) address “Open” Action 

Items requested by the AMWG and its TWG in previous fiscal years; (2) address additional 

needs identified by TWG and AMWG members and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center (GCMRC) for independent science reviews based on a prioritization of such requests; (3) 

address additional needs for independent science reviews recommended by the EC, subject to 

prioritization and approval; and (4) establish guidelines for preparing the work plan for the next 

subsequent fiscal year. 

However, Sound Science has determined that the FY 2016 annual SA-EC work plan must depart 

from this typical situation, for two reasons. First, FY 2016 is already underway with no SA-EC 

annual work plan in place. In fact, the SA-EC program has been inactive since late in FY 2014, 

without preparation of a work plan for either FY 2015 or FY 2016. Such preparation ordinarily 

requires consultation with the AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC; approval by the contracting agency 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016 page 1/8 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

the GCD AMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan for Fiscal Years 2015-2017: “Fisheries 

Research, Monitoring, and Management Actions Protocol Evaluation Panel.” 

(formerly GCMRC, now Reclamation); and a recommendation for approval from the AMWG to 

the Secretary of the Interior. Further, the process for AMWG review and recommendation must 

be timed to allow for AMWG review no later than its last meeting of the current fiscal year. 

Additionally, AMWG review requires prior SA-EC consultation with the TWG. Given these 

constraints, the SA-EC in FY 2016 must have an annual work plan in place for the current FY no 

later than the end of December 2015. This schedule is necessary, to allow enough time for the 

SA-EC to prepare and obtain approval of the work plan for FY 2017 before the end of September 

2016. This timeline provides no room for the normal extended SA-EC consultation with the 

TWG or AMWG review of the SA-EC work plan for the present FY. In the absence of such 

consultation and review, however, the SA-EC should not undertake any new initiatives for the 

and the procedures it needs to follow to carry out these responsibilities, including the process for 

prioritizing its potential for each FY. The survey of AMWG members by Mary Orton, AMWG 

Facilitator, has also revealed widespread uncertainty over the intended purposes and 

responsibilities of the SA program overall. 

Given this situation, Sound Science proposes that the SA-EC work plan for the remainder of FY 

2016 focus simply on ‘rebooting’ the SA program rather than undertake any new initiatives for 

which prior TWG consultation and AMWG approval would be crucial. Specifically, the SA-EC 

work plan for the remainder of FY 2016 will focus on: (1) reviewing the mission of the SA-EC 

program, its operating procedures, and its functional relationships with the GCMRC and the 

TWG and proposing recommendations to Reclamation and the AMWG for their review; and (2) 

reviewing GCD AMP archives and engaging with the AMWG to identify both short-term 

priorities for FY 2017 and long-term needs and expectations for the SA-EC program. 

The SA-EC will also assist the GCMRC in implementing the activity identified as Project 8.3 in 

remainder of FY 2016 that would require close prior consultation with the TWG and AMWG. 

Second, Sound Science has determined through its review of SA-EC and GCD AMP archives 

that the roles and procedures of the SA-EC program evolved over the years since the program 

began in 2001. While many aspects of the GCD AMP also have evolved over this time, the 

evolution of the SA-EC program in particular does not appear to have been entirely explicitly 

planned, officially recognized, or formally documented and approved by the AMWG and the 

Secretary. The SA-EC program therefore faces some uncertainty concerning its responsibilities 

Objective 1: Review Science Advisor Program Responsibilities and

Protocols

The GCD AMP and its science program are subject to a very high level of public scrutiny, 

beginning with the AMWG, its TWG, and the GCMRC. Reviewing, and reaffirming or updating 

SA-EC responsibilities and protocols will contribute to the transparency of the GCD AMP and 

ensure a continued sharp focus for the SA-EC program in support of the GCD AMP. The 

administrative transfer of the SA program from the GCMRC to Reclamation, the departure of Dr. 

Garrett from the EC office and the arrival of Sound Science, the hiatus in the SA program during 

most of FY 2015, and changes to the SA program associated with the transfer of the program to 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016 page 2/8 
sample of “science advisor” panels that operate in support of other federal and joint 

Reclamation provide both a need and an opportunity to review SA program roles and protocols 

to explicitly reaffirm or update them as needed. 

Under Objective 1, the SA-EC will: 

(a) Complete efforts begun by the EC during implementation of Task Order #1 to identify 

and verify the core responsibilities and protocols of the SA-EC program as authorized in 

past decisions of the AMWG and Secretary; 

(b) Complete efforts begun by the EC during implementation of Task Order #1 to identify 

transfer of administration to Reclamation, including the associated changeover from 

maintaining a single standing panel of Science Advisors to enlisting external advisors 

only as needed to address individual topics; and 

(f) Work with the TWG to develop recommendations for an updated charter and set of 

protocols for the SA-EC program for review by Reclamation and the AMWG, which in 

turn will transmit their recommendations to the Secretary for approval. 

The specific elements of Objective #1 will be as follows: 

1. Review Science Advisor Program Responsibilities and Protocols 

1.1. Complete review of GCD AMP archives concerning SA-EC program responsibilities 

and protocols, begun under Task Order #1. 

1.2. Consult with members of the AMWG and TWG and with the AMWG Facilitator (Mary 

Orton) on AMWG expectations for the relaunched SA-EC program. This element will 

involve the following: 

1.3. Review and document the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of a representative 

and verify ways in which SA-EC activities may have evolved, with or without official 

recognition; 

(c) Identify current expectations for and concerns about the SA-EC program roles in 

relationship to the AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC;
 

(d) Identify the types of roles and responsibilities of “science advisor” panels that operate in 

support of other federal and joint state-federal large-river adaptive management programs 

around the U.S., to identify options for clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the SA 

program within the GCD AMP; 

(e) Identify ways in which formal SA-EC program operations will differ as a result of the 

state-federal large-river adaptive management programs around the U.S., to identify 

options for clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the SA program within the GCD 

AMP. 

1.4.	 Document the ways in which the responsibilities and protocols and expectations for the 

SA-EC program have evolved, distinguishing changes explicitly recognized and 

formally approved from other changes. 

1.5.	 In consultation with the TWG, prepare recommendations for an updated charter for the 

SA-EC program. The format of the charter will follow that of the AMWG and TWG 

Operating Procedures documents. The recommendations will address the following: (1) 

SA program roles and responsibilities within the GCD AMP, including its relationships 

to the AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, Reclamation, and the purposes of the GCD AMP 

overall. (2) EC responsibilities within the SA program. (3) SA and EC operating 

procedures, including procedures for: (a) annual reporting and development of the 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016	 page 3/8 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

presented these recommendations to the TWG and GCMRC in June, 2014, in the form of a 

annual work plan; (b) identifying and prioritizing topics for potential independent 

external review; (c) recruiting and obtaining approval for external Science Advisors to 

participate in independent external reviews; (d) managing and generating reports and 

recommendations from independent external reviews; and (e) consulting with the 

AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, and Reclamation throughout these efforts. (4) The 

responsibilities, criteria for selection, standards of conduct, and rules for cost 

reimbursement for external Science Advisors recruited to topical panels. (5) Criteria for 

SA-EC attendance at AMWG and TWG meetings and for meeting with the GCMRC 

and Reclamation; and protocols for Reclamation approval of attendance or participation 

by phone or no participation. 

review the past concerns and recommendations of the Science Advisors that bear on the current 

Triennial Budget and Work Plan; and a need for the SA-EC to consult with the AMWG, 

GCMRC, and TWG on possible thematic emphases for the SA-EC program going forward. The 

review of past concerns and recommendations will provide a timely opportunity to: (a) identify 

major themes in these concerns and recommendations; (b) identify those concerns and 

recommendations that have been resolved or become obsolete; and (c) identify concerns that 

remain unresolved and possible reasons for this. Consultation with the AMWG, TWG, and 

GCMRC on thematic emphases will help reestablish the SA-EC program as a vital component of 

the GCD AMP. The review and consultation also will identify topics on which the SA-EC 

program might focus in FY 2017, under AMWG guidance, and contribute to preparations for the 

next triennial budget and work plan. 

The last formal activity of the Science Advisors program prior to its hiatus from late FY 2014 to 

late FY 2015 consisted of its reviewing and preparing recommendations on a draft of the GCD 

AMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan for Fiscal Years 2015-2017. The previous SA-EC 

1.6. Following review of the recommendations (from element 1.5, above) by Reclamation 

and the TWG, revise the recommendations for an updated charter for the SA-EC 

program and have them presented for AMWG review. This element will involve the 

following: 

Objective 2: Review Science Advisor Program Thematic Concerns

The circumstances described in the Background section above suggest a need for the SA-EC to 

meeting presentation and a substantial written report. The final version of the Triennial Budget 

and Work Plan addressed as many of these recommendations as possible, but does not indicate 

specifically where and how it took these recommendations into account. The document that the 

Science Advisors submitted with their recommendations in June 2014 also refers to past 

concerns of the Science Advisors program, and the extent to which these concerns have been 

addressed through June 2014. The SA-EC will compare the comments and recommendations 

submitted by the Science Advisors in June 2014 with the final Triennial Budget and Work Plan 

for FY 2015-17 to assess past SA-EC concerns and recommendations. Additionally, the SA-EC 

will: (a) review the annual reports of the SA-EC program from at least the previous five years 

(FY 2010-2014); (b) solicit the perspective of the previous Science Advisor Executive 

Coordinator, Dr. Garrett, and individual Science Advisors from FY 2010-2014 on outstanding 

and emerging concerns; (c) review all AMWG Action Items concerning the SA-EC program that 

appear to remain Open; (d) consult directly with the AMWG on scientific themes of existing or 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016 page 4/8 
Garrett, and previous Science Advisors from FY 2010-2014 on outstanding and 

emerging concerns for program. 

emerging concern among the AMWG members; and (e) review the findings of a survey carried 

out late in calendar year 2015 by the AMWG Facilitator to assess AMWG concerns and 

expectations in general. Several of these activities overlap with activities to complete Objective 

#1, above, but focused on different types of information. 

The specific elements of Objective #2 will be as follows: 

2. Review Science Advisor Program Thematic Concerns 

2.1.	 Jointly with the GCMRC, review and provide recommendations to the AMWG on the 

need for Project 1.2 identified in the GCD AMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan 

because that project is funded on a calendar year cycle independent from the federal 

fiscal year cycle of the GCDAMP, a preliminary description of Project 1 is included as 

Appendix 1 of this TWP.” As described in the TWP, this review panel is not an official 

Protocol Evaluation Panel but rather a type of external review for which the Science 

Advisors program originally was established. 

Compare the June 2014 “Science Advisor Recommendations on Review of Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Triennial Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal 

Years 2015-2017” with final version of the triennial budget and work plan, and 

determine the ways in which the final version addressed (or did not address) these 

recommendations. 

Review the annual reports of the SA-EC program and all AMWG Action Items 

assigned to the SA-EC program from FY 2010-2014, and identify shared (repeated) 

scientific themes of concern. 

Solicit the perspective of the previous Science Advisor Executive Coordinator, Dr. 

(TWP) for Fiscal Years 2015-2017, which calls for the GCMRC “...to fund a Science 

Review Panel to evaluate past studies of reservoir physical limnology and ecology that 

have focused on Lakes Powell and Mead. This Panel will be asked to make 

recommendations to the GCDAMP, Reclamation, and to other relevant agencies on 

how reservoir limnology and ecology ought to be monitored in the future and to make 

recommendations about how existing and new modeling tools could be used to predict 

future conditions in Lake Powell. Water quality, including temperature, is a strong 

determinant of ecological processes in the CRe. Because GCMRC and Reclamation 

continue to discuss changes in the approach and data analysis needs of Project 1, and 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5.	 During the consultation carried out for Objective #1, element 1.2, above, solicit input 

on scientific themes of existing or emerging concern among the AMWG members. 

2.6.	 Prepare and submit to Reclamation, the GCMRC, and the TWG for discussion a ‘white 

paper’ on (a) themes in Science Advisor program scientific concerns and 

recommendations to strengthen the GCD AMP; (b) the state of resolution of these 

concerns; and (c) emerging additional themes and/or concerns for strengthening the 

GCD AMP. 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016	 page 5/8 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Protocol	 	 	 	 Evaluation Panel Assistance

Objective 3: Establish the Science Advisor Program Work Plan for FY

2017

The SA-EC must develop recommendations for its work plan for the upcoming fiscal year (FY 

2017) for approval prior to the end of FY 2016. The process of assembling a work plan for the 

SA-EC program for an upcoming fiscal year requires several months, because the process 

requires time for: (1) soliciting suggestions from the AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC for tasks to 

include in the work plan; (2) identifying other possible tasks for the work plan based on 

additional perspectives; (3) prioritizing these ideas and drafting a work plan for review by 

Reclamation and subsequent revision; (4) submitting and presenting the proposed work plan to 

Tabulate formal Action Items for the SA-EC program previously approved by the 

3.2. Compile suggestions from the AMWG, GCMRC, and TWG for topics for the SA-EC 

program to address in FY 2017. 

3.3. In consultation with the TWG, identify and prioritize a set of recommended objectives 

for the SA-EC program for FY 2017, based on criteria identified under Objective #1, 

above, with additional discussion with the GCMRC as necessary to clarify the terms of 

specific tasks; and assess likely costs. Objectives will include participation in a fixed 

number of meetings and conference calls (webinars) with Reclamation and with the 

AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC. 

3.4. Present proposed SA-EC work plan for FY 2017 for AMWG review 

3.5. Prepare final SA-EC work plan for FY 2017. 

Objective 4: Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and Management Actions

the AMWG for review; and (5) obtaining the approval of the AMWG and the Secretary of the 

Interior. Additionally, the SA-EC must begin working with Reclamation, the GCMRC, the 

TWG, and the AMWG during FY 2017 to help develop the next triennial budget and work plan. 

The information assembled and reported under Objectives #1 and #2, above, will significantly 

inform the work under Objective #3. 

The specific elements of Objective #3 will be as follows: 

3. Establish the Science Advisor Program Work Plan for FY 2017 

3.1.
 

AMWG. 

The GCD AMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan for Fiscal Years 2015-2017, Project 8.3, calls 

for the GCD AMP to conduct a “Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and Management Actions 

Protocol Evaluation Panel.” The triennial work plan lists the project leaders as Scott 

VanderKooi, GCMRC; Kirk Young, USFWS; Brian Healy, NPS; and David Rogowski, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. The triennial work plan describes the project as follows: 

An external review panel comprised of scientists with relevant expertise will be convened in 

either FY16 or FY17 to ensure that the quality and relevance of fisheries science being 

conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators is held to the highest of standards. This panel will 

conduct a review of all aspects of the GCRMC fisheries program described in Projects 6, 7, 

8, and 9 of the FY15–17 workplan. They will make recommendations regarding the scope 

and direction of the program as well as provide an evaluation and recommendations for 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016 page 6/8 
concerning the exact meeting dates, agenda, inclusion of a field visit, presentations by 

GCMRC and cooperators, and discussion time. 

future work with respect to the level of effort, study design, and relevance of individual 

research activities. 

The foundational documents for the GCMRC and the SA/EC program do not stipulate which 

entity would conduct the Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEPs), which were part of the Independent 

Research Panels (IRPs) component of AMWG along with the SA/EC program. However, the 

SA/EC program does not appear to have been involved in any PEPs during at least the last six 

years of the last contract (FY 2009-2014) that the SA/EC program has so far reviewed. The 

GCMRC alone implemented all PEPs during this period. Regardless of such precedents, 

Reclamation and the GCMRC have asked the SA/EC program to assist in conducting the planned 

the description of the planned PEP presented in the triennial work plan. Participation of the 

SA/EC in the PEP will provide additional staff resources needed for implementing the PEP, and 

provide an additional layer of attention on behalf of the AMWG. 

The specific elements of Objective #4 will be as follows: 

4. Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and Management Actions Protocol Evaluation Panel 

Assistance 

1.1. Assist the GCMRC and cooperators in preparing a formal set of “charges” for the 

review panel and scheduling the panel meeting. 

1.2. Identify 5-7 peer reviewers from the scientific community external to the agencies and 

community directly involved in fisheries studies in Glen Canyon and the Grand 

Canyon. 

1.3. Provide opportunity for panel members to hear concerns of TWG prior to attending the 

panel meeting (primarily responsibility of the GCMRC). 

1.4. Plan logistical details for panel meeting (primarily responsibility of the GCMRC), 

Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and Management Actions PEP in FY 2016. The fisheries 

research, monitoring, and management program in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon 

Dam and Lake Mead is a joint effort of the GCMRC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand 

Canyon National Park, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department, with support from Josh 

Korman, Ecometric Research Inc., Vancouver, BC, and several university research teams. It is 

subject to significant scrutiny among the AMWG members and the public, and subject to 

significant potentially conflicting goals. Consequently, external scientific review of the 

cooperative fisheries research, monitoring, and management program is crucial, as indicated in 

1.5.	 Attend and co-chair (with the GCMRC) panel meeting. Most of panel meeting activities 

set by agenda and coordinated by GCMRC logistical staff. GCMRC will provide notetaking services as needed, and will pay honoraria and travel expenses for all external 

panel members but not for SA/EC. 

1.6.	 Support and/or facilitate panel deliberations and preparation of report following panel 

meeting as requested by the panel. 

1.7.	 Submit report to Reclamation on SA/EC involvement in PEP. 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016	 page 7/8 
Objective	 	 	 5: Project Management

Sound Science LLC must establish and maintain project management to Reclamation standards. 

The IDIQ governing Sound Science engagement as the Science Advisor Executive Coordinator 

for the GCD AMP requires that the contractor maintain an archive of documents prepared for the 

GCD AMP. Additionally, the IDIQ also requires that the contractor participate in monthly 

conference calls with Reclamation to maintain coordination and track progress. Further, the IDIQ 

requires that the contractor submit an annual report on the activities and achievements of the SAEC program. Finally, this objective includes an element for routine project administration. 

The specific elements of Objective #4 will be as follows: 

Maintain cataloged archive of all Science Advisor program documents per protocols 

established under Task Order #2. 

Conduct monthly calls with Agency/COTR. 

Prepare and submit SA program annual report, which will include annual report on 

5. Project Management 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3.
 

program archive status.
 

5.4. Maintain SA-EC program administration. 

Deliverables

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Recommendations for an updated SA-EC Program Charter, submitted to AMWG. 

White Paper on past, continuing, and emerging themes in Science Advisor program scientific 

concerns and recommendations to the GCD AMP. 

SA-EC Program Work Plan and Budget for FY 2017. 

SA-EC Program Annual Report for FY 2016. 

SA/EC report on participation in, contributions to, and lessons learned from SA/EC 

involvement in the Fisheries PEP. 

Sound Science LLC, GCDAMP Science Advisors Executive Coordinator Work Plan for FY2016 page 8/8 
David P. Braun, Sound Science LLC

GCDAMP Executive Coordinator for Science Ad

January 28, 2016
Presentation outline

 Purposes of Science Advisors program Special circumstances affecting development o

FY2016 work plan

 FY2016 work plan objectives Key steps and coordination needs to achieve FY

objectives
Science Advisors origins: IR

 Part of “Independent Review Panels” establishe

1995 FEIS & 1996 ROD

 IRPs “...periodically review[]

resource specific monitoringand research programs and ...mak[e] recommendations to theAMWG and GCMRC regarding

monitoring, priorities, integrationand management.” (AMWG 1998)
Science Advisors Role in IRP

 Four Types of IRPs:

 External review of research proposals to and reports 

GCMRC

(now obsolete

)

 NRC review of science program, resulting in 1999 re

Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon 

the Colorado River Ecosystem

 “Protocol Evaluation Program” (PEP) “Scientific Advisors” program, with Executive Coord

“periodically reviewing resource specific monitoring 

research programs and for making recommendation

AMWG and the Center [GCMRC] regarding monitor

priorities, integration, and management

” (2001 Scien

Advisors Operating Protocols)
GCDAMP IRPs not unique

 Numerous “sister” IRPs for multi‐agency, mult

stakeholder adaptive management of other lar

regulated western rivers in U.S.

 Sacrament0‐San Joaquin Bay‐Delta Ecosystem

Restoration Programhttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/erp/

 Northwest Power and Conservation Council

https://www.nwcouncil.org/

 Missouri River Recovery Program

http://moriverrecovery.usace.army.mil

 Etc.
Science Advisors FY2002‐20

 Executive Coordinator: Dr. L. David Garrett Continuously operating Science Advisor panel Conducted reviews agreed upon with TWG, G

AMWG

 AMWG reviewed and recommended annual wo

to Secretary of the Interior

 GCMRC responsible for administering and supe TWG closely involved in developing annual pla

budget

 Last action

 June 2014 review of draft triennial work plan for 
FY2016 Special Circumstan

 Program administration transferred from GCM

Reclamation as of FY2015

 Science Advisors no longer a standing panel; n

empaneled as needed for individual reviews

 No annual work plan developed since FY2014 No pending Action Items or other requests for

program action

 Program practices evolved, FY2002‐2014, not a

with formal recognition or documentation

 LTEMP: opportunity to review and rethink IRP 
Science Advisors FY2016 pl

 Developed in consultation with Reclamation, 

and TWG leadership, Secretary’s designee

 Three objectives1. Review/update charter and protocols for the 

Advisors program & Executive Coordinator;

2. Develop and confirm work plan for FY2017;3. Work with the GCMRC to ensure successful d

and completion of Fisheries Protocol Evaluat

Panel (PEP).
Key steps to first two objec

 Review program charter, official protocols, past practices Work with TWG to draft updated charter for AMWG to reco

Secretary

 Review past AMP science integration efforts, DFCs, SSQs, CM

RINs, accomplishments

 Review results of AMP assessment survey (Orton) Consult with TWG members both individually and in group Consult with GCMRC and Reclamation Consult previous Executive Coordinator and Science Adviso

FY2010

‐14

 Review June 2014 SA recommendations for

& impacts on Tri

Work Plan for FY2015

‐17

 Review LTEMP EIS Review ISPs in other large multi

‐institutional adaptive mana

programs for large regulated western rivers
Assisting Fisheries PEP

 Assisting GCMRC

 Lead Cooperators: USGS, NPS, FWS, AGFD, ...

 Help frame “charges” to panel members conce

fisheries monitoring & research in relation to o

AMP goals & priorities

 Help identify potential panel members with de

experience in large‐scale, river ecosystem adap

management both within and beyond CRE

 Help facilitate workshop and panel reporting
Questions?