Budget AHG/TWG/GCMRG/USBR Combined Budget Conference Call June 14 2010

Home Browse Search

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2010 Combined Conference Call Page 3 the TWG and then sent back to the AMWG for a decision. Steve informed Shane he would bring up an amendment for an extirpated species workshop. Shane said if anyone has something they want brought up in the TWG meeting, they should send that information to Shane. Experimental Fund Expenditures and Projected Balance. John directed people to look at Attachment 4 of his memo which addresses how Experimental Flow Funds will be use to do work associated with preparation of a HFE Science Plan (page 204 of BWP). • Leslie said there was a disconnect in #1 with the explanation and the title of the narrative in the BWP. John said if there were any other changes, they should be sent to him as soon as possible. • Rick questioned letting stakeholders do work and having GCMRC review. He said he was trying to understand the differentiation. He mentioned the Douglas work that had been done. Helen told him that work was outside the program whereas the project he mentioned is part of a program GCMRC is developing with an approach to the AMP. • Shane questioned the use of the Experimental Flow Fund and how it would square with the AMWG since it was to be used for future high flow experiments. John said that the increased monitoring is needed to support an HFE. Rick said he thought that perhaps the cap on power revenues isn't relevant and that the program needs clarity and a policy call from Anne Castle. John said GCMRC tried to be responsive to AMWG's direction on how to use EFF money. Reduction in Science Advisors Budget. Dave Garrett asked if he felt it would be helpful to share a memo he sent to John about what SA services would be reduced as a result of the $50K being taken out of their budget. John said he felt that was appropriate and told Dave to forward the memo to the TWG. Reduction in NPS Permitting. Steve said he didn't understand why there would be a reduction in the money allocated for processing NPS permits. He said the funding needs to continue. Matthew told him that this didn't appear to require funding at this level since there weren't as many permits needed in association with AMP work, and that it no longer requires a full -time employee to do the permitting work. Steve suggested having a separate conversation with NPS, GMCRC, and USBR to discuss line item further. Reduction of POAHG Funding. Mike said he wants to talk with other POAHG members to determine what their needs will be for FY11 and FY12. LTEMP EIS. George Caan asked he could find the scope of the LTEMP EIS and the associated costs. Dennis told him that the LTEP costs were used as a predictor for how much the LTEMP EIS might cost. However, he said the Department has a better idea of what they want. Rick asked if the LTEMP EIS would result in a new ROD for dam operations. Dennis said that since the program began in 1997 there have been three large scale experiments. There's a level of uncertainty in planning for those and the Department hasn't told them anything about what is being planned. Dave asked whether the LTEP and LTEMP EIS process might be merged. Clayton reminded everyone that Anne Castle said she thought it would take three years to complete the LTEMP EIS. Rick suggested they be put together and get the whole thing on the table to ensure there are sufficient funds to do the work. Leslie said the cost would be determined by the scope of work. Dennis pointed out that Reclamation does not believe the $250K/$500K allocated by GCMRC will be enough, which is why Reclamation moved $300K to that line item from the treatment plan in FY2011.