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.
| 
