Difference between revisions of "GCDAMP RAHG Page"

Secretary’s Designee Representative: Randy Peterson, Tom Ryan

Technical Work Group Chair: Shane Capron

Members: Kurt Dongoske, Norm Henderson

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: Denny Fenn, John Hamill, Jeff Lovich

Science Advisors: Dave Garrett

Ad Hoc Group Facilitator: Mary Orton

The attendees of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) retreat in June 2004 identified the most urgent issue facing the adaptive management program (AMP): the clarification of roles, responsibilities, and functions of the various program components. At the subsequent meeting of the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) in August, the Roles Ad Hoc Group was formed and charged to define roles, responsibilities, and functions of the AMWG, Technical Work Group (TWG), Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), and Science Advisors (SAs). The Roles Ad Hoc Group consisted of a representative of the Secretary’s Designee to represent AMWG, the Chair of the TWG, the Chief of GCMRC, and the Executive Coordinator of the SAs. The first Roles Ad Hoc Group completed its report in January 2006. Twice since then, the Ad Hoc Group has been asked to review and revise the report, in part because of comments received from AMP participants, and in part because of changing personnel at the helms of the AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC.

Because of wide dissemination of the draft reports to AMP participants, many of the suggestions in it have been informally adopted. Either because of better understanding of the foundational documents or because of improved communication and relationships, some of the issues in the report are no longer as much of a problem as they once were. These include:

• 1, AMWG role, authority, and relationships
• 6, Assignments to TWG and requests to GCMRC
• 7, AMWG authority over agencies
• 11, Secretary’s responses to AMWG recommendations
• 13, TWG defining core questions
• 17, TWG decision making
• 19, GCMRC participation in Ad Hoc Groups
• 20, GCMRC focus and deliverables
• 21, GCMRC workload
• 22, GCMRC budget latitude and accountability
• 27, Reclamation collaboration and coordination
• 29, Clarity of Science Advisors’ comments

The report begins with a Compilation of Recommendations related to the 32 issues identified and addressed in the report. The main body of the report has six sections: AMWG, Secretary’s Designee, TWG, GCMRC, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and SAs. Statements of issue or concern are numbered and in bold-faced type. These statements were culled from the issues raised at the 2004 AMP Retreat and from members of the Roles Ad Hoc Group.

The recommendations presented in the report have been based in large part on foundational documents, including the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (GCDEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), and many other documents. Quotes from foundational documents throughout the report are in Italics. The Appendix contains a review of AMP foundational documents as they inform these issues.

A list of References concludes the report.

Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG)

1. AMWG role, authority, and relationships. The AMWG must follow the role established by the Charter, making formal recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior using the processes described in the Operating Procedures.

2. Collaboration

• Beginning in FY09, hold regular (annual or biennial) workshops/retreats to build trust among AMP participants and to address internal operations, roles, and effectiveness.

1. Ensure that all parties clearly understand the interests of every other party.
2. Discuss whether there is a balanced range of interests willing and able to participate, and if not, how to ensure it.
3. Identify incentives that might be needed in order to encourage the parties to work collaboratively to achieve common goals.
4. Determine the kinds of activities that should be used to build trust and foster collaboration.
5. Training on how to improve collaborative processes within the AMP.

• Establish a full time Executive Coordinator/Manager for the Program.
• Utilize facilitation and mediation expertise more broadly throughout the AMP.
• The Secretary’s Designee will emphasize the development of consensus for motions proposed by AMWG members.
• Develop a process for evaluating tradeoffs among conflicting or competing goals.

3. AMWG distinction from TWG. As a rule, technical reviews and deliberation will occur at the TWG meetings. This technical analysis will help AMWG understand the basis for the TWG recommendations and will serve as companion information to the AMWG evaluation of policy implications. For each AMWG agenda item for which there is a TWG recommendation, the TWG chair or designee will present a summary of the TWG’s work and its recommendation before discussion or action by AMWG.

4. Acting on TWG recommendations. The AMWG will discuss and consider all TWG recommendations.

5. Planning and scheduling work. A 1-year schedule will be developed for AMWG and TWG by the chairs of each group, which clearly shows all essential regular items that need to be addressed every year, plus other items that have been added by AMWG.

6. Assignments to TWG and requests to GCMRC. As the AMWG considers recommendations or requests to the TWG or GCMRC, the TWG Chair and GCMRC Chief will review any actions that involve them to ensure the action and timeframe is clear. Conflicts in workload that cannot be resolved by the GCMRC or the TWG within current budgeting or staffing will be reported to the Secretary’s Designee who will determine how best to respond to the AMWG request.

7. AMWG authority over agencies. No formal direction is given to TWG without consensus or a vote by AMWG. No formal direction is given to GCMRC without consensus or a vote by AMWG, and approval of such by the Secretary’s Designee. GCMRC decides, as an agent of the Secretary of the Interior responsible for the AMP science program, what input to incorporate into its program, unless and until the input is an AMWG recommendation that has been accepted by the Secretary of the Interior.

8. AMWG decision making. After a motion is made and seconded, AMWG members will modify the motion as needed through discussion in order to attempt to attain consensus. If consensus is not possible, a roll call vote will be taken. Abstentions do not block consensus recommendations, and if a roll call vote is taken and everyone who voted cast an affirmative vote, the vote will be considered unanimous even if there were abstentions.

9. Conflicts of interest. To comply with Federal procurement regulations, the following approach will be used:

1. AMWG will provide Federal agencies with broad program advice and recommendations through the organized FACA process.
2. After program and budget approval by the Secretary of the Interior, GCMRC or Reclamation will issue requests for proposals (RFPs) to solicit specific monitoring and research proposals to meet program needs. However, in some cases, limited competition and sole-source contracts may be used. (See Issue #22 for more detail.)
3. GCMRC will fund proposals based on an independent peer review and comment process.

10. Measures of success. In order to measure whether progress is being made toward achieving management objectives, the AMWG will recommend to the Secretary targets (desired future conditions) for the management objectives in the AMP strategic plan. These targets, needed to guide and focus science and management activities as well as to measure success in the program, will be incorporated into the AMWG strategic plan.

Secretary’s Designee

11. Secretary’s responses to AMWG recommendations. The Secretary’s Designee will formally transmit AMWG recommendations to the Secretary within 15 working days of the AMWG meeting in which the recommendations were made. If the Designee sees potential adverse consequences, the Designee can elevate the issue to the DOI agency heads, regional directors, or Assistant Secretaries for formulation of a DOI response to the AMWG. The Secretary’s Designee will convey the outcome of these discussions and the final DOI response in writing to the AMWG within 45 working days of the AMWG meeting. A written status report will be provided if a final DOI decision is not reached within the 45 working day process.

Technical Work Group (TWG)

12. TWG’s technical focus. 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. 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

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.

13. TWG technical qualifications. TWG members should have a technical background sufficient to adequately evaluate scientific proposals and make technical recommendations to the AMWG.

14. TWG defining core questions. The core questions have been defined. AMWG in 2004 identified five priority questions related to the 12 GCDAMP goals that were to be used to focus science activities. In 2005, 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.

15. TWG role. 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.

16. Participation by TWG members. 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.

17. TWG decision making. TWG members’ comments on GCMRC products are documented, responded to, and provided back to TWG with a revised document for review and approval. 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. In all its deliberations, the TWG will attempt to reach consensus. A roll call vote will be taken when consensus is not possible. Abstentions do not block consensus or unanimous vote.

18. Communication between TWG and AMWG members. AMWG and TWG members are expected to confer before and after each TWG meeting.

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC)

19. GCMRC participation in Ad Hoc Groups. GCMRC will participate in all AMWG, TWG, and Ad Hoc Committee meetings. In the event this is not possible, GCMRC will so communicate to the Chair of the relevant committee in advance of the meeting.

20. GCMRC focus and deliverables. GCMRC efforts will focus on the most important work products. GCMRC will develop a report for each project in the BWP at the end of each fiscal year. This report will document accomplishments and expenditures, as well as shortfalls, with recommendations for change.

21. GCMRC workload. See Issue #5 for a description of a 1-year schedule that will be developed to assist in better timeframe planning by all groups in the AMP. See Issue #6 for a description of a new process designed to ensure directions are clear and workload is considered before an assignment is accepted.

22. GCMRC budget latitude and accountability. The GCMRC will give periodic updates on its operations and budget, including an annual accomplishments report, semi-annual budget reports, and reports on projects that have been deferred or significantly delayed. The BWP will include contingency projects that will be funded if surplus funds arise. GCMRC has the latitude to make budget adjustments of up to 5 percent of its total budget to accomplish work specified in the BWP. No new AMP projects will be implemented by GCMRC or Reclamation without first consulting with the TWG chair and vice-chair and the Secretary’s Designee. The Secretary’s Designee will determine whether consultation with the AMWG is needed.

23. Contracting. The most cost effective mechanisms will be used to accomplish work. In general, GCMRC and Reclamation will prepare RFPs and use an open, competitive process for awarding funding for new research projects or new initiatives. For other projects, limited competition, and sole-source contracts in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations may be used. GCMRC scientists may conduct field research and monitoring under the same conditions, particularly in time-sensitive cases where a formal RFP or other competitive contracting mechanism would not be practicable. GCMRC and Reclamation will annually report to AMWG on how much, by percentage, of their science was contracted through open competitive process and how much was accomplished through each of the other mechanisms.

24. GCMRC compliance. GCMRC will address NEPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Historic Protection Act (NHPA) compliance, and NPS/Tribal research permitting processes, among others, and the resultant permits can include conditions, restrictions, and mitigation as needed. Such requirements will be considered by DOI when deciding whether to proceed with the proposed actions.

25. Protocol Evaluation Panels. A TWG information needs workshop will occur prior to each PEP which will provide specific guidance from stakeholders on what needs should be addressed by the PEP. It is the responsibility of GCMRC to develop the charge to an upcoming PEP, with input from the Secretary’s Designee, the SAs, the TWG Chair, and the Reclamation Program Manager. PEP reports will provide majority or consensus views of the panel members. Where consensus is not reached, minority views will be documented in the report.

26. Science performed by other agencies. GCMRC has approved protocols and procedures for responding to AMP science information needs through its own staff and by contracting with entities external to AMP. If AMWG wishes to advance certain areas of the program more rapidly, it should identify those priorities to the Secretary’s Designee. If approved by the Secretary’s Designee, GCMRC will develop a plan to resolve those concerns in the next 12-month period, perhaps through an accelerated timeline of contracted work with external entities.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)

27. Reclamation collaboration and coordination. AMWG agendas will be formulated to meet the intent of the AMP strategic plans and other approved planning and operational documents. To facilitate productive AMWG discussions, specific input for AMWG agendas will be solicited sufficiently in advance to allow complete staff work by the TWG and GCMRC.

AMWG members, the TWG Chair, and the GCMRC Chief will be involved in the AMWG agenda development process. The Secretary’s Designee makes the final decision on the AMWG agenda. The TWG Chair and Vice-Chair, the Executive Coordinator of the Science Advisors, and the Chief or Deputy Chief of GCMRC will work cooperatively to develop the TWG agenda.

28. Programmatic agreement. Reclamation must make sure that the views of both PA signatories and AMWG recommendations are considered in reaching final decisions in the PA forum. It should be the intent of each of these groups to work collaboratively to accomplish the purposes of the PA, the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA), the FEIS, and the ROD.

Science Advisors (SAs)

29. Clarity of Science Advisors comments. The SAs maintain their independence from GCMRC to ensure their reviews are objective and unbiased. The SAs do not maintain regular contact with GCMRC scientists. All review comments, no matter how critical, are documented in the SAs formal report.

30. Tracking responses to Science Advisors’ reviews. The SA Executive Coordinator and GCMRC Chief will summarize for TWG the SA review recommendations and changes made by GCMRC to respond to the SA review(s). In addition, the SA Executive Coordinator in his/her annual program report to TWG and AMWG will summarize key changes in science plans/programs that were made in response to SA reviews. All SAs’ comments will be posted on the GCMRC website on a separate page to be developed in FY09.

31. Science Advisor independence.

• The SA Executive Coordinator position is competed nationally as a senior scientist position to the general science community. The position award is based on high quality science ability and accomplishment.
• The eight-discipline Science Advisors are recruited nationally from a pool of hundreds of senior scientists. Appointments are proposed by the GCMRC Chief and approved by the AMWG based on the highest quality science credentials.
• The SA protocols and operating procedures specify explicit criteria to assure independence and eliminate bias and conflict from the SA group and its review process.
• All SAs must sign and adhere to explicit USGS requirements addressing conflict of interest and independence

32. Science Advisors’ review of the AMP. The SAs review of the AMP was completed in January 2007 and reported to the TWG in April 2007. The report will be presented to the AMWG upon request.

• Report and Recommendations to the Secretary’s Designee From the Roles Ad Hoc Group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (December 2008)