Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001916 <br /> <br />10 - AMWG rehashes what the TWG has already hashed <br />Solution - TWG responsibility is to AMWG. TWG could offer options to AMWG. <br />Report to AMWG should have more technical detail regarding the discussion and <br />pros/cons of options considered, avoiding policy debate. Research reports should <br />provide clearer information. TWG members should provide greater information to <br />their AMWG members on the TWG debate (communication), individually and as a <br />group. TWG should take on only the technical issues and should let the AMWG <br />know when they believe they have been given an improper task. The AMWG <br />should help define what those issues are. Designee should give clearer direction and <br />leadership in areas where the groups are outside their responsibilities. <br /> <br />11 - AMWG gives unclear direction, TWG second-guesses AMWG <br />Solution - AMWG should be dear in their direction and follow up to make sure <br />TWG pursues the path laid out by AMWG. <br /> <br />12 - TWG doesn't have enough flexibility <br /> <br />13 - formal processes need to be improved <br />Solution - EIS ROD and operating procedures are not being followed. By <br />preparing an annual SCORE report and report to Congress and the 7 Basin State <br />Governors, the AMP would be forced to (1) an evaluation of resources and (2) a <br />consideration of how well our actions are meeting requirements. AMWG members <br />should be fully engaged in preparing for meetings, and facilitator should prompt <br />each member to contribute to discussions, rather than allow a small percentage of <br />, the group to dominate the discussion. Agendas should be set with an expectation of <br />discussion of these issues, with sufficient time allocated to accomplish this. Need to <br />look at what has worked in the past, program successes (such as results on sediment <br />conservation efforts). <br /> <br />14 - relationship between Federal agencies and F ACA committee unclear in terms of <br />recQmmendations vs. decisions <br />Solution - Recommendation and response process needs to be more explicit to <br />encourage trust among AMWG members. Timing of when Secretary responds to <br />AMWG recommendations may be part of this issue - at that point, DOl agencies <br />will be on the same page. <br /> <br />15 - question whether AMP has adequate processes for dealing with dissention when <br />consensus is not reached. How does the AMP deal with conflicting scientific opinions? <br />Solution - A WMG should make the resolving decision on what to recommend to the <br />Secretary when there are conflicts between science, policy and politics. Peer <br />reviewed, published scientific literature should be used in the representation of <br />scientific opinion. <br /> <br />AMWG - GCMRC relationships <br />