AMWG Stakeholders' Priorities and Comments FY 11-12 Budget

Home Browse Search

Stakeholders Budget Comments and Priorities, continued Lynn Hamilton, GCRG: GCRG requests the currently deferred item, on line 184, "Phase I - Results of Economic Value Workshop" be funded for $117,273, in lieu of the Mechanical Removal trip that will not be funded. Phase I includes Hydropower Analyses and Economic Effects of Resource Use. The need for economic analysis capacity has been identified by the Science Advisors and by previous NAS /NRC reviews. The Protocol Evaluation Panel, as well as the final report of the socioeconomic workshop made this recommendation as well. This information is critical as a foundation for meaningful discussions about tradeoffs in managing the Glen Canyon Dam for the benefit of downstream resources, as required by the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The answers from this process will be important for AMWG Priority Questions Priority 1 and 2, and critical to determining Priorities 3 -5 Priority Z LUhy are the Humpback chub not thriving and what can we do about it? How many Humpback chub are there and how are they doing? Priority 2. 1 Uhich cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the APE, which should we treat, and how do we bestpmtect them? What are the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration? Priority 3. 1 Ylhat is the best flow regime? Priority 4.• What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? Priority 5. What will happen when we test or implement the TCD? How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for management? Because of the lag in funding research and obtaining final answers, it is critical and urgent to fund this work in FY 11, so that results can available as soon as possible. The requested amount of $117,273 is less than 11/2 percent of the program budget, and will give the program a strong return on this investment. To reiterate: these funds are available because of the cancellation of this year's mechanical removal trip. Steve Martin, NPS: Following is a TWG budget item that was voted on and not passed that we believe need to be brought forward to the AMWG for further discussion and consideration: (line 184) The FYI 1-12 budget /work plan should include $117,273 to fund deferred project HYD 10.tbd, "Phase I — Results of Economic Value Workshop." A )DIT ONT L PRIOItI'I°II S FOR DiscussioN ON THE F .- L )cr-.T Sam Spiller, USFWS: 2. Native Fishes: Nonnative Control Plan Science Support and NEW Evaluation of Trout Movement, Natal Origins and Alternatives for Controlling Rainbow Trout Populations Near the LCR 4. Rainbow Trout 2. Native Fishes: Mainstem & LCR Monitoring 3. Extirpated Species 6. Springs / Riparian Clayton Palmer, Western: Please consider this addition (it's hard to overemphasize the interest generated by the scientific presentations at Saguaro Ranch as it relates to this topic) Mainstem nonnative fish management: Mechanical removal is currently being considered by DOI /DOE and the tribes and between USBR and the F &WS under the ESA. Certainly, a Page 7