Difference between revisions of "Technical Work Group (TWG)"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 45: Line 45:
 
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
 
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
 
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
 
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
−
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Updates</h2>
+
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Roles of the TWG [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-02-03-amwg-meeting/Attach_04.pdf]</h2>
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
  
 +
==TWG’s technical focus==
 +
Some believe the TWG demonstrates a lack of focus on truly technical issues, and that their
 +
emphasis on policy issues impedes the effectiveness of the group.
 +
 +
===Background===
 +
The foundational documents specify that the TWG’s role is technical in nature:
 +
The Technical Work Group’s main function is to provide technical assistance to the Adaptive
 +
Management Work Group (Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group. [Glen
 +
Canyon Dam AMWG], 2002, p. 5).
 +
 +
[TWG] would translate AMWG policy and goals into resource management objectives and
 +
establish criteria and standards for long-term monitoring and research in response to the GCPA.
 +
(Department of the Interior, 1995, p. 37).
 +
 +
===Recommendation===
 +
The primary role of the TWG is to translate AMP goals and objectives into resource management
 +
objectives, and establish general criteria and standards for long-term monitoring and research
 +
consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA), the FEIS, and the ROD. The TWG should
 +
also:
 +
# Review progress/ accomplishments annually
 +
# Providing general technical guidance for the program and BWP
 +
# Review and update the MRP and BWP to ensure they are responsive to management needs
 +
 +
The TWG will continue to focus primarily on the scientific and technical aspects of the AMP,
 +
potentially including social and economic considerations if so directed by AMWG. In addition, the
 +
TWG will serve as the interface between science and policy, and integrate science into AMWG
 +
requests and recommendations that have been approved by the Secretary. The TWG agenda should
 +
allow various viewpoints to be expressed and initially provide an opportunity for TWG members to
 +
gain understanding of others' viewpoints and search for common ground, which would promote
 +
consensus recommendations to be made to the AMWG. Group ranking or prioritization may help
 +
achieve this goal. If consensus is not possible, then motions would be considered. When making a
 +
recommendation to AMWG, all alternatives that were considered – including technical pros and cons
 +
– will be submitted to the AMWG for its review and consideration. Minority positions will be given to
 +
AMWG by the advocates for that position, if they wish to do so.
 +
 +
In order to enhance the decision-making process, a simple alternatives analysis process will be
 +
developed for use by TWG and AMWG. The alternatives analysis process will consider pros and
 +
cons of a recommendation from both a technical and policy perspective. The TWG will conduct the
 +
technical analysis; the AMWG will conduct the policy analysis.
 +
 +
==TWG technical qualifications==
 +
 +
Some TWG members appear to lack technical training that would enhance their contribution
 +
toward success of the group.
 +
 +
===Recommendation===
 +
TWG members should have a technical background sufficient to adequately evaluate scientific
 +
proposals and make technical recommendations to the AMWG. TWG members should have relevant
 +
academic and technical qualifications and currently function in a technical capacity for the
 +
agency/entity they represent. The Secretary’s Designee will communicate with AMWG members the
 +
Report and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s Designee Page 17
 +
importance of this, and request that they appoint technically or scientifically competent individuals to
 +
the TWG.
 +
 +
==TWG defining core questions==
 +
Some feel the EIS expectation that the TWG define core questions for GCMRC to address is
 +
not being met.
 +
 +
===Recommendation===
 +
Since 1996, the AMWG has used a structured process for specifying their information needs.
 +
Through a series of workshops, extensive energy has been expended to develop a hierarchy of
 +
goals, objectives, core monitoring information needs (CMINs), and research information needs
 +
(RINs). The AMWG also specified 12 goals that provide general guidance for planning, monitoring,
 +
and research efforts. However, the list of objectives grew to more than 40 and the various
 +
information needs to more than 200 complicating science planning and priority setting.
 +
Given this complexity, the AMWG identified the need for a different approach in 2004 and identified
 +
five priority questions related to the 12 GCDAMP goals that were to be used to focus science
 +
activities. In 2005, to further focus science planning efforts, the GCMRC initiated two Knowledge
 +
Assessment Workshops that identified areas of scientific uncertainty and specified strategic science
 +
questions related to the five priority questions. These questions now form the basis for the Strategic
 +
Science Plan (SSP) and Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) that were adopted by the AMWG in
 +
December 2005. To respond to concerns raised by the AMWG, GCMRC has developed a crosswalk
 +
table to show the relationship between the various information needs (INs) and the proposed strategic
 +
science questions. The SSP and MRP were updated based on this analysis and both documents
 +
were approved by the AMWG.
 +
 +
==TWG role==
 +
TWG often appears as an unnecessary intermediary in the AMP process. The role of TWG is
 +
therefore unclear.
 +
 +
===Background===
 +
AMWG primarily provides general direction and leaves technical details to be worked out between the
 +
TWG and GCMRC. Therefore, it is imperative that there is a highly functional TWG.
 +
As specified in the foundational documents, any issue addressed by TWG must be approved by
 +
AMWG in advance.
 +
 +
The Technical Work Group . . . operates at the direction of the Adaptive Management Work
 +
Group. (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2002, p. 5).
 +
Sub-groups [e.g., TWG] will receive their charges from the AMWG. Sub-groups will work only on
 +
issues assigned them by the AMWG. They will not be empowered to follow other issues on their
 +
own. They are encouraged to submit issues to the AMWG they feel worthy of consideration and
 +
discussion, but the AMWG must approve work on all new issues. (Gabaldón, 2002, p. 5).
 +
The TWG shall perform those tasks charged to them by the AMWG. Additional responsibilities of
 +
the TWG are to develop criteria and standards for monitoring and research programs; provide
 +
periodic reviews and updates; develop resource management questions for the design of
 +
monitoring and research by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and provide
 +
information, as necessary, for preparing annual resource reports and other reports, as required,
 +
for the AMWG. (Johnson, 2001, p. 1).
 +
 +
The TWG’s responsibility is similarly limited, but even more so; it is to carry out only specific
 +
assignments within the scope of the AMWG’s responsibility, as directed by the AMWG.
 +
(Loveless, 2000, p. 3).
 +
 +
Report and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s Designee Page 18
 +
The Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Department of
 +
the Interior, 1995, p. 37) specifies the following additional responsibilities for TWG:
 +
*Develop criteria and standards for monitoring and research programs within 3 months of the formation of the group and provide periodic reviews and updates
 +
*Develop resource management questions for the design of monitoring and research by the center
 +
*Provide information as necessary for preparing annual resource reports and other reports as required for AMWG
 +
 +
The AMP Strategic Plan (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2002, p. 5) adds the following TWG
 +
responsibilities:
 +
*Reviewing and commenting on the scientific studies conducted or proposed by the program;
 +
*Provide [sic] a forum for discussion by Technical Work Group members, external scientists, the public, and other interested persons;
 +
*Reviewing strategic plans, annual work plans, long-term and annual budgets, and other assignments from the Adaptive Management Work Group.
 +
 +
===Recommendation===
 +
AMWG members will ensure an effective TWG by placing representatives on the TWG who can
 +
speak for and represent them on the scientific and technical aspects of the AMP.
 +
 +
The TWG will focus its work on assignments from AMWG and the responsibilities outlined in the FEIS
 +
and the AMP Strategic Plan. In addition, the TWG will be proactive in identifying issues that it should
 +
address, and present to AMWG its proposed work plan for approval on an annual basis.
 +
 +
==Participation by TWG members==
 +
Many TWG members are unwilling or unable to fully participate in work efforts required to
 +
meet deadlines and commitments.
 +
 +
===Background===
 +
In order to operate effectively, the TWG must include stakeholder representatives who are willing and
 +
able to participate in the AMP process. This participation includes participation in TWG votes,
 +
attendance of meetings, participation in ad hoc groups, and providing timely reviews of documents.
 +
 +
===Recommendation===
 +
The AMWG and the TWG Chair will be sensitive to the time commitments required of TWG members
 +
when making assignments or establishing new ad hoc committees. Assignments will be clearly
 +
defined and the scope limited based on an estimated workload that most TWG members can
 +
realistically accommodate.
 +
 +
AMWG members will nominate TWG members who have adequate time and the inclination to fully
 +
participate. Full participation is defined as participation in TWG votes, attendance at TWG meetings,
 +
participation as an active member of Ad Hoc Groups (attending meetings, taking on work
 +
assignments, reviewing documents in a timely manner, etc), and providing timely review of
 +
documents as requested. Annually the Secretary’s Designee will consult with the TWG Chair on the
 +
effectiveness of the TWG, including the level of member participation.
 +
 +
The Secretary’s Designee will formally notify AMWG and TWG members of this new requirement.
 +
Report and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s Designee Page 19
 +
 +
==TWG decision making==
 +
TWG is sometimes unwilling to make decisions or give recommendations to AMWG, resulting
 +
in unconsolidated recommendations to GCMRC representing individual, and often
 +
diametrically opposed, views of stakeholders.
 +
 +
===Recommendation===
 +
GCMRC and the TWG have developed a process for soliciting and responding to comments from the
 +
TWG members on various GCMRC products (e.g., MRP, BWP, various science plans, etc). TWG
 +
comments are documented, responded to, and then provided back to TWG with a revised document
 +
for review and approval. This two-step process involves first, comments from individuals, and then
 +
full TWG consideration of those comments while developing a recommendation to AMWG. This has
 +
proven to be an effective approach. However, GCMRC is not bound to incorporate all of the
 +
individual comments and must make scientific judgments on the merit of each one. If GCMRC
 +
disagrees with a comment, or believes it is a policy comment, they will provide this rationale to TWG
 +
in the response to comments table. As described above, disagreements with GCMRC must be
 +
voiced at the TWG and then rise to the AMWG for resolution via the Secretary’s Designee, if
 +
necessary. TWG will provide the necessary technical background information to AMWG for
 +
resolution. Opposing views often embody policy decisions and thus are best dealt with by AMWG,
 +
utilizing the technical information available to inform those policy decisions.
 +
 +
In order to help the decision-making process, TWG will follow its Operating Procedures (Johnson,
 +
2001) for consensus building and voting. In all its deliberations, the TWG will attempt to reach
 +
consensus. A roll call vote will be taken when consensus is not possible. Prior to the vote, the TWG
 +
Chair will ensure that all TWG members are aware that a roll call vote is pending, that the TWG
 +
membership understands the language of the motion before them, and that the TWG is ready for the
 +
vote. Abstentions do not block consensus or unanimous vote.
 +
 +
==Communication between TWG and AMWG members==
 +
It appears that many TWG members do not have regular interaction with their AMWG
 +
members, creating information gaps and confusion.
 +
 +
=== Recommendation ===
 +
AMWG and TWG members are expected to confer before and after each TWG meeting. This will
 +
help to ensure that, as much as possible, the TWG members are in accord with their AMWG
 +
members when they present their agency’s technical or scientific concerns and needs at the TWG
 +
meeting. This will also make it more likely that technical issues, including those important to AMWG
 +
members, will be resolved at TWG instead of having to be addressed at AMWG.
  
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 17:23, 1 July 2019
140130 TWG 2014- Vineetha.jpg

Technical Work Group (TWG)

The Technical Work Group (TWG) is a subcommittee of the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), and is chaired by one of the TWG committee members selected by a vote of the committee. The TWG is comprised of technical representatives from each organization represented in the AMWG, with the exception of two members from the National Park Service representing the Grand Canyon National Park and the Glen Canyon Recreational Area, and one representative from the U.S. Geological Survey. TWG members are appointed by the member agencies or interests represented on the AMWG. [1] The Technical Work Group’s main function is to provide technical assistance to the Adaptive Management Work Group. Technical Work Group functions may include (Reclamation 1995:37):

  • Developing, with the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, criteria and standards for monitoring and research programs and providing periodic reviews and updates of these;
  • Developing, with the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, resource management questions (i.e., information needs);
  • Reviewing and commenting on the scientific studies conducted or proposed by the program;
  • Provide a forum for discussion by Technical Work Group members, external scientists, the public, and other interested persons;
  • Providing information as necessary for preparing annual resource reports and other reports as required by the Adaptive Management Work Group; and
  • Reviewing strategic plans, annual work plans, long-term and annual budgets, and other assignments from the Adaptive Management Work Group. [2]
--
--
--

Roles of the TWG [3]

TWG’s technical focus

Some believe the TWG demonstrates a lack of focus on truly technical issues, and that their emphasis on policy issues impedes the effectiveness of the group.

Background

The foundational documents specify that the TWG’s role is technical in nature: The Technical Work Group’s main function is to provide technical assistance to the Adaptive Management Work Group (Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group. [Glen Canyon Dam AMWG], 2002, p. 5).

[TWG] would translate AMWG policy and goals into resource management objectives and establish criteria and standards for long-term monitoring and research in response to the GCPA. (Department of the Interior, 1995, p. 37).

Recommendation

The primary role of the TWG is to translate AMP goals and objectives into resource management objectives, and establish general criteria and standards for long-term monitoring and research consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA), the FEIS, and the ROD. The TWG should also:

  1. Review progress/ accomplishments annually
  2. Providing general technical guidance for the program and BWP
  3. Review and update the MRP and BWP to ensure they are responsive to management needs

The TWG will continue to focus primarily on the scientific and technical aspects of the AMP, potentially including social and economic considerations if so directed by AMWG. In addition, the TWG will serve as the interface between science and policy, and integrate science into AMWG requests and recommendations that have been approved by the Secretary. The TWG agenda should allow various viewpoints to be expressed and initially provide an opportunity for TWG members to gain understanding of others' viewpoints and search for common ground, which would promote consensus recommendations to be made to the AMWG. Group ranking or prioritization may help achieve this goal. If consensus is not possible, then motions would be considered. When making a recommendation to AMWG, all alternatives that were considered – including technical pros and cons – will be submitted to the AMWG for its review and consideration. Minority positions will be given to AMWG by the advocates for that position, if they wish to do so.

In order to enhance the decision-making process, a simple alternatives analysis process will be developed for use by TWG and AMWG. The alternatives analysis process will consider pros and cons of a recommendation from both a technical and policy perspective. The TWG will conduct the technical analysis; the AMWG will conduct the policy analysis.

TWG technical qualifications

Some TWG members appear to lack technical training that would enhance their contribution toward success of the group.

Recommendation

TWG members should have a technical background sufficient to adequately evaluate scientific proposals and make technical recommendations to the AMWG. TWG members should have relevant academic and technical qualifications and currently function in a technical capacity for the agency/entity they represent. The Secretary’s Designee will communicate with AMWG members the Report and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s Designee Page 17 importance of this, and request that they appoint technically or scientifically competent individuals to the TWG.

TWG defining core questions

Some feel the EIS expectation that the TWG define core questions for GCMRC to address is not being met.

Recommendation

Since 1996, the AMWG has used a structured process for specifying their information needs. Through a series of workshops, extensive energy has been expended to develop a hierarchy of goals, objectives, core monitoring information needs (CMINs), and research information needs (RINs). The AMWG also specified 12 goals that provide general guidance for planning, monitoring, and research efforts. However, the list of objectives grew to more than 40 and the various information needs to more than 200 complicating science planning and priority setting. Given this complexity, the AMWG identified the need for a different approach in 2004 and identified five priority questions related to the 12 GCDAMP goals that were to be used to focus science activities. In 2005, to further focus science planning efforts, the GCMRC initiated two Knowledge Assessment Workshops that identified areas of scientific uncertainty and specified strategic science questions related to the five priority questions. These questions now form the basis for the Strategic Science Plan (SSP) and Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) that were adopted by the AMWG in December 2005. To respond to concerns raised by the AMWG, GCMRC has developed a crosswalk table to show the relationship between the various information needs (INs) and the proposed strategic science questions. The SSP and MRP were updated based on this analysis and both documents were approved by the AMWG.

TWG role

TWG often appears as an unnecessary intermediary in the AMP process. The role of TWG is therefore unclear.

Background

AMWG primarily provides general direction and leaves technical details to be worked out between the TWG and GCMRC. Therefore, it is imperative that there is a highly functional TWG. As specified in the foundational documents, any issue addressed by TWG must be approved by AMWG in advance.

The Technical Work Group . . . operates at the direction of the Adaptive Management Work Group. (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2002, p. 5). Sub-groups [e.g., TWG] will receive their charges from the AMWG. Sub-groups will work only on issues assigned them by the AMWG. They will not be empowered to follow other issues on their own. They are encouraged to submit issues to the AMWG they feel worthy of consideration and discussion, but the AMWG must approve work on all new issues. (Gabaldón, 2002, p. 5). The TWG shall perform those tasks charged to them by the AMWG. Additional responsibilities of the TWG are to develop criteria and standards for monitoring and research programs; provide periodic reviews and updates; develop resource management questions for the design of monitoring and research by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and provide information, as necessary, for preparing annual resource reports and other reports, as required, for the AMWG. (Johnson, 2001, p. 1).

The TWG’s responsibility is similarly limited, but even more so; it is to carry out only specific assignments within the scope of the AMWG’s responsibility, as directed by the AMWG. (Loveless, 2000, p. 3).

Report and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s Designee Page 18 The Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Department of the Interior, 1995, p. 37) specifies the following additional responsibilities for TWG:

  • Develop criteria and standards for monitoring and research programs within 3 months of the formation of the group and provide periodic reviews and updates
  • Develop resource management questions for the design of monitoring and research by the center
  • Provide information as necessary for preparing annual resource reports and other reports as required for AMWG

The AMP Strategic Plan (Glen Canyon Dam AMWG, 2002, p. 5) adds the following TWG responsibilities:

  • Reviewing and commenting on the scientific studies conducted or proposed by the program;
  • Provide [sic] a forum for discussion by Technical Work Group members, external scientists, the public, and other interested persons;
  • Reviewing strategic plans, annual work plans, long-term and annual budgets, and other assignments from the Adaptive Management Work Group.

Recommendation

AMWG members will ensure an effective TWG by placing representatives on the TWG who can speak for and represent them on the scientific and technical aspects of the AMP.

The TWG will focus its work on assignments from AMWG and the responsibilities outlined in the FEIS and the AMP Strategic Plan. In addition, the TWG will be proactive in identifying issues that it should address, and present to AMWG its proposed work plan for approval on an annual basis.

Participation by TWG members

Many TWG members are unwilling or unable to fully participate in work efforts required to meet deadlines and commitments.

Background

In order to operate effectively, the TWG must include stakeholder representatives who are willing and able to participate in the AMP process. This participation includes participation in TWG votes, attendance of meetings, participation in ad hoc groups, and providing timely reviews of documents.

Recommendation

The AMWG and the TWG Chair will be sensitive to the time commitments required of TWG members when making assignments or establishing new ad hoc committees. Assignments will be clearly defined and the scope limited based on an estimated workload that most TWG members can realistically accommodate.

AMWG members will nominate TWG members who have adequate time and the inclination to fully participate. Full participation is defined as participation in TWG votes, attendance at TWG meetings, participation as an active member of Ad Hoc Groups (attending meetings, taking on work assignments, reviewing documents in a timely manner, etc), and providing timely review of documents as requested. Annually the Secretary’s Designee will consult with the TWG Chair on the effectiveness of the TWG, including the level of member participation.

The Secretary’s Designee will formally notify AMWG and TWG members of this new requirement. Report and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s Designee Page 19

TWG decision making

TWG is sometimes unwilling to make decisions or give recommendations to AMWG, resulting in unconsolidated recommendations to GCMRC representing individual, and often diametrically opposed, views of stakeholders.

Recommendation

GCMRC and the TWG have developed a process for soliciting and responding to comments from the TWG members on various GCMRC products (e.g., MRP, BWP, various science plans, etc). TWG comments are documented, responded to, and then provided back to TWG with a revised document for review and approval. This two-step process involves first, comments from individuals, and then full TWG consideration of those comments while developing a recommendation to AMWG. This has proven to be an effective approach. However, GCMRC is not bound to incorporate all of the individual comments and must make scientific judgments on the merit of each one. If GCMRC disagrees with a comment, or believes it is a policy comment, they will provide this rationale to TWG in the response to comments table. As described above, disagreements with GCMRC must be voiced at the TWG and then rise to the AMWG for resolution via the Secretary’s Designee, if necessary. TWG will provide the necessary technical background information to AMWG for resolution. Opposing views often embody policy decisions and thus are best dealt with by AMWG, utilizing the technical information available to inform those policy decisions.

In order to help the decision-making process, TWG will follow its Operating Procedures (Johnson, 2001) for consensus building and voting. In all its deliberations, the TWG will attempt to reach consensus. A roll call vote will be taken when consensus is not possible. Prior to the vote, the TWG Chair will ensure that all TWG members are aware that a roll call vote is pending, that the TWG membership understands the language of the motion before them, and that the TWG is ready for the vote. Abstentions do not block consensus or unanimous vote.

Communication between TWG and AMWG members

It appears that many TWG members do not have regular interaction with their AMWG members, creating information gaps and confusion.

Recommendation

AMWG and TWG members are expected to confer before and after each TWG meeting. This will help to ensure that, as much as possible, the TWG members are in accord with their AMWG members when they present their agency’s technical or scientific concerns and needs at the TWG meeting. This will also make it more likely that technical issues, including those important to AMWG members, will be resolved at TWG instead of having to be addressed at AMWG.


Links

Projects

Presentations and Papers

2019

2018

2017

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

Other Stuff
Retrieved from "http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Technical_Work_Group_(TWG)&oldid=8666"