Laserfiche WebLink
Stakeholders Budget Comments and Priorities, continued <br />ZI01UT ES AND COMMENTS oN TVIG ISS .ES OF CONCE RN <br />The fbRowing.items bave to coo with : l' 's ctmeerns that the cuffeat udA.-et rrza txot be <br />adequate, and eoncems about tae use ofset aside htrzr s to make tip bi-s bortl sa <br />Sam Spiller, USFWS: How to fund management and /or actions that AMWG may not support or funds <br />currently are not adequate to address. <br />Leslie James, CREDA: Research and Monitoring to Management Actions: Need to prioritize <br />establishing the criteria, agency responsibility and funding mechanisms for transitioning research <br />and monitoring to management actions. This issue permeates many of the ongoing budget <br />categories, such as 4, 5, 7, 13, and 14 from the TWG list. <br />. 1` 'C_i is conc:c:rnecl about the conti:trued ttse of the c; pc:t.it c�atal tirrrd .for other ptttl�c>sc:s ��yithin il�c: <br />budget, �%it:hout; setting aside ffie expedme.n.t_al_ fund; it trza be di.ffrct0t, to carry out: tort exp #ell'ITICilts ire <br />the fur re, °lhould there: be alt II.F : in 1 ^'t°1.1. or FYI 2, having this :anal amount of m. one y available for <br />clata gathe.t-irrg and an tll:sls �t «uld mean no rneaningful stodgy . '.i'he definilt; ��ould lac deucra-wi ng the affect: <br />of arr ll I' through the tnorticotirr4} l rogrataa alone. ;art l F should lac; only- be ct>ttc uctc:c ;l tc> answ er° <br />clirect; ,sc;ierice questions. `therefore, a scictac _-.e plan should be developed and fandin g should be iden fled <br />for this put..pose. (1ft;`3 /3 <br />Ann Gold, Reclamation: Use of experimental fund for other purposes within the budget. If another <br />high flow event or other issues arise that AMWG decides is important and isn't in the current <br />plan, there will be no funds to accomplish them <br />Clayton Palmer, Western: TWG item #3: Experimental fund being used by GCMRC: The <br />experimental fund is being "tapped" in the 2011/2012 budget. Western does not oppose the use <br />of this fund for monitoring and research activities. However, we believe that potential future <br />HFEs are experimental and should be analyzed as to their ability to achieve the stated <br />environmental goals. Funds should be available — either through the experimental fund or <br />through another funding source. <br />Dennis Strong, State of Utah: This is one of top five priority items to discuss during the webinar. <br />. `liae -V °IWG is cc >racetne:d about the con.tirwed use of the warm- \xvat.er nonnative fish. Colvin, e ra.cV <br />fund for ath.er purposes within the budget, (no obliect on) <br />Ann Gold, Reclamation: Continued use of warm water non - native fish contingency fund for other <br />purposes. If it is necessary to take some immediate action to deal with wane water non - natives, <br />there will not be money available to do so. <br />Steve Martin, NPS: This is one of top five budget priorities that warrant further discussion: ( #3 -4, line <br />24) <br />Sam Spiller, USFWS: One of top five priorities for discussion on the budget: Number 04. TWG is <br />concerned about the continued use of the warm water nonnative fish ... fund for other purposes <br />5. ;line 166) C 3C MR(, has moved riutrt€=tOUS p1ts.1ccts out of the budget t.o an unfunded projects list \1211Y- <br />of thesc issi'le: represent compliance regtd enac:ntr. or otherirn.portant projects th2t should be carried ottt <br />Page 2 <br />