|
stakeholders Budget Comments and Priorities, continued
<br />c ,l:inc. i <; ' J he 1 YJ 1 ;2 l:attdpe:t; �� or pl n slyould include S8c) 568 tci fil:td de tt;.i-.red project 1))A -.A
<br />I:?,f)q,10 -11, Thi.> one:- t:irnc.:Stridy 1S needed to aid tire. AMP in t {�.�antifying a desired ftitui:e condition for
<br />s ,dir ze.nt i:esc>iirc;c;s.'1`li.is work could lie .f nded b� reckici:ng thc: I) � �. l.?: � �.i.0 cooperati� e agrc;crric °rut
<br />J X81,:,6 S for one tear or Jm(1(?0 0 er t_>c °ar5
<br />Steve Martin, NPS: This is one of top five budget priorities that warrant further discussion: ( #9, line
<br />188)
<br />Dennis Strong, State of Utah: This is one of top five priority items to discuss during the webinar.
<br />11. Artie 168; Increased inair:.stcn -L rno.nitoi lug sliol:11d be tun.cl�cl its J �' f attd :1 "?. Cnc} «l�jec:tioc�)
<br />Mike Senn and Bill Stewart, AzGFD: There is on ongoing PEP analysis, which should be completed
<br />this summer. Results from this analysis should identify a need for additional monitoring. The
<br />proposed budget for this is —$240k for FY11 and —$240 for FY12. We are currently spending
<br />— $600 -$700k on mainstem monitoring. GCMRC hopes that if there is a need for increased
<br />mainstem monitoring, it can be accomplished by shifting work from the LCR to the
<br />mainstem. We believe that this issue should be revisited upon completion of the PEP analysis.
<br />Sam Spiller, USFWS: One of top five priorities for discussion on the budget: Number 11. Increased
<br />mainstem fish monitoring should be funded in FY 11 and 12...
<br />Z (`lane, 1861 Since this geonlorphol.og.tcal m, odeling project assists in the identification of tile; impacts of
<br />darn. operation vs. the in�Ji4i.e,ts of natural. effects', this project shc�ttic ;l be fun.cle;cl, (no ol�jecrion)
<br />The _fidjoty ng.rte ms hma c to do iv th addition l roj cts to be hwded, r• d itional. a riding f n-
<br />ixrct.irr fire errt budget.
<br />I. lni:plement a r.tc w ;,rant in the -work plan-for pov -rer econor 11C.s, v� htc,h. ,gill be c.ai °tzecl out l�� l�' �1� � iii
<br />l' ° ( }1 I anal. 201;2, as described in the props_ sal pros -ided by �°� APA dated 3,` 1,5 ;'1 lI. ��'z11'LLl ,v ill per #c�ri�i
<br />these: tasks v itli no cast to the C.1{ ID_1 IP, and will prm, le the acttzi,J. cost as a c;ooperato.r i.n fife budget
<br />spreadsheet. 'Me xx ork \ .°ill be part of the work plan and coordinated and rer Leveed by G NIP C:. The
<br />�:, =oi kJilan. -ould be developed by C ;CRINIC; and l?, A A in. coordination V ith the "1 � ( �, 'I hts �� i.11 re:svilt in
<br />c psi. ; t« C i IIZC t rat Yill need tc : e li:t °c. c- icier; tc3 c exec avid PtOVide beer re -?cue c:,t dii, project.
<br />"10; 3 3;
<br />Leslie James, CREDA: Concur with the recommendation to have WAPA /GCMRC develop a
<br />workplan at no cost to the AMP. Also recommend freeing up the funds in line 98 LMonitorPower
<br />Generation and Market Values under Current and Future Dam Operations (Ongoing), ,8900 proposed in
<br />FYI 1, $1 1,456 proposed in FY12J for use in a higher priority item (such as continuing the
<br />ecosystem modeling work by Walters, et al.). This recommendation was also made at the most
<br />recent TWG meeting, and in previous budget discussions.
<br />Clayton Palmer, Western: Power economic analysis: Western supports adding a line in the 2011 /2012
<br />budget for this item.
<br />Steve Martin, NPS: This is one of top five budget priorities that warrant further discussion: ( #1)
<br />Dennis Strong, State of Utah: This is one of top five priority items to discuss during the webinar.
<br />iinr: J. )add fczitding .iri l4 i` 2CJ11 .E >i I �I-C: support ($60,00(I), Including .EaciJitation and decisi.ort.
<br />support. (iio objection)
<br />Page 4
<br />
|