Laserfiche WebLink
Stakeholders Budget Comments and Priorities, continued <br />tes further the goals of the GCD AMR The AMW(�' ) should consider other mcchmisrn , s for acquirnig <br />funchliy)- for these pro'ecus, such as ielexi:i:iliecl irz the bienflialbud, '13; 2;' 21 <br />p-et -.)r0ce,,S paper. <br />Leslie James, CREDA: Line 166 (Unfunded Projects) — agree that a funding mechanism should be <br />identified. This comment does not 'indicate support for everything on this Est. <br />Clayton Palmer, Western: TWG item #5: The budget shortfall: significant unfunded projects; is the <br />precursor to a discussion of the items below. Western would like to briefly take up the subject of <br />budget development. This will likely overlap with the AMWG agenda item: BUDGET <br />PROCESS. We'd be happy to have the "budget shortfall" discussed under this agenda topic. <br />16,TW(..'Y advises the AIVM..; thai: if a 10i g -uerm expeninicnial. management plan EIS is undervaken III <br />I or 12 the amowit of po-vio-er revenues requested in the budget will increase. (no objections� <br />Ann Gold, Reclamation: Long-term experimental management plan EIS. B OR is looking at bringing <br />some funding to the table for this EIS, but will not have enough to cover all expenses. <br />Clayton Palmer, Western: TWG item #16: LTEP EIS compliance in 2011 and 2012 appears to not be <br />adequately funded. <br />Tlic, ( flo o �iqg -iteins ha ve to do with 1:)rojects that ha -,v been def&rred or not fuzulecl it, the <br />prof -wsed bu�ctgm —1XV, <br />Aiut.c. I = <br />'ails -,k ch ions above C alls have been by (A <br />]111(-, 1"51) ipba(. ub translocat <br />belleve's ul-lis is an Important coinplia.i.-ice roquirernent, and a project that Las shown. great potend'a ff �)r <br />pry; IdN e effects 011. dIe J-CR popuLation and should be futi.ded in !"�Yl I and f`Y.12. (no objec 'on" <br />Leslie James, CREDA: Line 175 (HBC translocations) — should not be deferred. <br />Jennifer Gimbel, State of Colorado: HBC ttanslocations (line 175, TWG item 2). This should not be <br />deferred. This item is too important in terms of compliance. Several less important items should <br />be reduced to accommodate this item. Some possible suggestions for reductions include the <br />approximately $1 million for water quality monitoring (line 86), the Kanab ambersnail monitoring, <br />given recent reports that indicate that this species should be delisted or do-wnlisted (line 77), or the <br />monitoring of power generation and market values under current and future dam operations (line <br />98). <br />Ann Gold, Reclamation: 2. Humpback Chub translocations above Chute Falls. One of Reclamation's <br />top five priorities to discuss. <br />Clayton Palmer, Western: TWG item #2: Chute Falls translocations: The representation by GCNIRC <br />and others of the science regarding Chute Falls translocation efforts indicates that this may be <br />making a significant beneficial contribution to the Grand Canyon HBC population. <br />- Related to this topic is GCMRC's position that such things as conservation measures that stem <br />from ESA consultation should not be funded as part of GCMRC's budget. This is a policy shift <br />from previous years. Western would recommend differently. <br />Sam Spiller, USFWS: One of top five priorities for discussion on the budget: Number 02. Humpback <br />chub translocations above Chute Falls have been deferred by GCNIRC. <br />Dennis Strong, State of Utah: This is one of top five priority items to discuss during the webinar. <br />Page 3 <br />