Laserfiche WebLink
Stakeholders Budget Comments and Priorities, continued <br />Sam Spiller, USFWS: One of top five priorities for discussion on the budget: Number 07. Add funding <br />in FY 2011 for DFC (Desired Future Conditions) support ($60,000), including facilitation and <br />decision support. <br />S. 71) The FYI 1­12 budget/workplari should Include 525,000 to fiend ari l­-.xtirr)at(,xl Species <br />Worl�shop to achieve the iollo'�kdng. <br />1, Firialize and prilor1rize Species list. <br />2, assess current complialACC C11V1ron111C11t tot VarIOUS implefriernatlon strategies. <br />13 1 A 1) <br />Dc\-el(_Yp a strategic fratiaework for implernent extirpated species goal within !'\1 <br />H'U'.s Work could be funded by reducing the 11k&, 12.1)5.10 coo1)eratiN-e agreetrientby S2_5,000- ;1213/1' <br />Jennifer Gimbel, State of Colorado: The Extirpated Species Workshop (fine 71, TWG item 8) is not a <br />priority, and it does not relate to important compliance issues, and it should be deferred. <br />Steve Martin, NPS: This is one of top five budget priorities that warrant further discussion: (#8, line 71) <br />1 O, (line 16Q) I cif ra nbo�v and brown. trout i nm,, ern.ent this ffiriding is inadequate for d. e <br />J)Urposc ofstudyiiip, and implerneriting possiblealternam-es to lethal fish rem.o'v-al, We suggest an increase: <br />cc) 5200,000 to S300,000. Alternatively- we suj,'�)esr a budget correction after tribal consultation. and <br />resulting actions [arc] identified. (no objection, <br />10 <br />Mike Senn and Bill Stewart, AzGFD: This being a new project we need to develop a scope of work, <br />cost, and principle investigators. Once this is completed we will have a better understanding of <br />whether or not additional funds are necessary. If additional funds are needed perhaps the $150K <br />from the GCMRC experimental fund that is earmarked for FY1 1 mechanical removal could be <br />redirected. <br />Leslie James, CREDA: Line 160 — need to fully fund this project, particularly given information that <br />was presented at the recent workshop. <br />Jennifer Gimbel, State of Colorado: Non-native fish movement (line 160, TWG item 10). Adequate <br />funding for this item should be secured. In addition, if the tribal consultations move quickly, is <br />there a chance that non-native fish /mechanical removal could move forward in the next budget <br />year? <br />Ann Gold, Reclamation: 10. Evaluation of trout movement. One of Reclamation's top five priorities to <br />discuss. <br />Clayton Palmer, Western: TWG item #10: Trout movement funding. Alternative trout control <br />mechanisms are being discussed as a result of concern expressed by the tribal representatives and <br />others. Investigations into alternative means of managing non-native fish in order to achieve HBC <br />goals need to be given top priority and adequate funding. Based on 'information recently <br />presented to the TWG (at the Saguaro Ranch workshop), experimentation on control strategies <br />should be developed and related research should be funded. <br />Steve Martin, NPS: This is one of top five budget priorities that warrant further discussion: (#10, line <br />160) <br />Sam Spiller, USFWS: One of top five priorities for discussion on the budget: Number 10. Evaluation of <br />rainbow and brown trout movement ... purpose of studying and implementing alternatives to <br />lethal fish removal .... <br />Page 5 <br />