My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12602
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSPC12602
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:17:01 PM
Creation date
8/6/2007 12:09:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.10.A
Description
Colorado River - Water Projects - Glen Canyon Dam-Lake Powell - Glen Canyon AMWG
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
6/28/2004
Author
Unknown
Title
AMWG-TWG Relationship - Draft - 06-28-04
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001915 <br /> <br />DRAFT - June 28~ 2004 <br /> <br />AMWG - TWG relationship <br /> <br />1 - AMWG doesn't meet often enough, schedule mismatches cause problems <br />Solution - AMWG should meet more frequently to improve guidance and <br />communication. This would help provide additional policy. <br /> <br />2 - poor communication between groups, lack of disclosure <br />Solution - should take more time for groups to talk to each other. More frequent <br />meetings, "executive summary" science symposiums, and retreats would help <br />inform AMWG of scientific results. TWG members must brief their AMWG <br />members on scientific reports. <br /> <br />3 - priorities not being set by AMWG <br />Solution - Every meeting should solicit feedback from GCMRC on key questions. <br />These are the questions managers needs to have answered. Prioritization of <br />questions would help GCMRC focus its workload. In the past, the Science Advisors <br />have not communicated well enough with AMWG. A separate meeting of AMWG, <br />TWG, SAs and GCMRC should set priorities. <br /> <br />4 - AMWG not acting as policy body <br /> <br />5 - agenda should be set by DOl, not just Reclamation <br /> <br />6 - are recommendations being set in response to Dbl inquiries or pro actively? <br /> <br />7 - TWG wants to more than technical body, making policy decisions, should be giving <br />AMWG technical recommendations <br />Solution - Some issues, such as budget, have policy and technical issues intertwined. <br />This particular case of the budget may be rlXed by having GCMRC present to the <br />AMWG their proposal and have the AMWG layout the policy priorities prior to <br />TWG technical discussion. . Joint meetings may help determine how to deal with <br />uncertainties. Report to AMWG should have more technical detail regarding the <br />discussion and pros/cons of options considered, avoi~ing policy debate. <br /> <br />8 - AMWG members shouldn't sit on the TWG <br />Solution ~ By having AMWG members sit on the TWG, a pure technical <br />recommendation is complicated. In situations where there are limited staff, joint <br />membership may be acceptable, but in cases where there are dual members, the <br />AMWG member should let the TWG member do their job. <br /> <br />9 - AMWG members should be more apprised of the science <br />Solution - GCMRC presentations to ~G have been productive, encourage more <br />of these. TWG should help to facilitate the analysis of technical information. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.