AMWG Stakeholders' Priorities and Comments FY 11-12 Budget

Home Browse Search

Stakeholders Budget Comments and Priorities, continued considered effort will be devoted to nonnative fish management in 2011 and 2012. Still, the funding allocated in the budget is for only one trip is proposed in 2011 and the project is deferred in 2012 completely. The scientific information recently presented at Saguaro Ranch and to the TWG suggests that: (a) trout are increasing throughout the system and may be at numbers comparable to 2003 when removal was initiated, (b) a plausible hypothesis and some analysis suggest that most of the production of trout occurs in the Lees Ferry reach and then fish migrate down to the LCR reach, (c) immigration rates to the LCR reach are likely to be high and comparable or greater than those observed in the 2003 -2005 removal effort, and (d) recent analyses suggest that humpback chub recovery may be sensitive to trout predation (brown and rainbow trout). Thus, we suggest that the removal and /or management effort be of the same magnitude as what was done during the 2003 -2006 program. We are interested in experimenting with other programs that could be initiated and expedited to control trout in the LCR reach as is described under issue #10 (e.g., interception fishery below Lees Ferry, population control in the Lees Ferry reach). The cost of the removal program was on the order of $800,000 per year. Such a management effort would likely need to be carried out for an extended time period. Steve Martin, NPS: Following is a TWG budget items that was voted on and not passed that we believe need to be brought forward to the AMWG for further discussion and consideration: (line 66) The FYI 1-12 budget /work plan should initiate the development of a nonnative fish (NNF) control implementation plan that will include elements that will be scoped at the March 31, 2010 NNF workshop. Nikolai Lash, GCT: Regarding Item 2a on the Task List [additionalpnorities or motion], we would like to see the sediment modeling begun by GCMRC finished (the mass balance modeling that was recently presented at the Saguaro Lake Modeling Workshop). I believe that GCMRC has suggested this will have no budget implications. I mention it here in case it does. Amy Heuslein, BIA: The BIA's top priorities for the budget discussion on the May AMWG conference call/webinar are as follows (in addition to line 29 and line 142 noted above): Line #37 Cooperative Agreements with the Tribes Line #67 Non - native Control Plan Science Support Line #101 Cultural Research and Development towards Core Monitoring Phase II (FY06 - FY12) Line #140 Near Shore Ecology /Fall Steady Flows (FY08 - FY12) COMMENTS oN ATINIWG PRTomms Es "OfflUSHE D iN 2004 Leslie James, CREDA: Recommend that the 2004 "priorities" that were included in the AMWG request be revisited and revised to reflect more recent science information and management priorities. This effort could help inform not only the DFC work, but as well the future monitoring, research and budget priorities. Jennifer Gimbel, State of Colorado: The 2004 identified AMWG priorities are no longer as relevant as they were then ... These "top priorities" should be revisited or no longer recited every time we have a budget discussion. Page 8