Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

tGlen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9 Minutes of July 16 -17, 2008, Meeting ' Kurt asked John how difficult it would be to respond to Mary's request. John said he thought it might be good to do what Bill had suggested in putting together a narrative and see how it plays in the overall process and buy down the USGS overhead.rate. He would need to talk with Barbara McKenzie because the USGS overhead rates are quite difficult to understand. He understands Mary's concern but said it is a very laborious exercise. CIS I 1 BO Conservation Measures identified in FY09 as ancillary projects and in FY10 vetted through the In /Out AHG and budget process. Bill Davis asked why it is going to take five years to develop a non - native control plan. Matthew referred to line 62 and said this is a short-term plan to be delivered broadly to the TWG within the next few weeks and that emphasis is on the species and techniques known today. GCMRC thinks that modeling will help them make some educated guesses on the greatest threat to the species. John said that it would also focus on testing specific species. Dave said the interpretation was there and will cover all current known capabilities, sample design, gear, etc. and that's due in two weeks. Between now and 2011, new information will be developed on new techniques and then that improved plan will be delivered. Kurt suggested that if there are specific concerns with the plan, they need to talk with Matthew. Bill Davis said he is trying to understand the plan and by 2011 it will change considerably. He feels the plan should be updated annually rather than waiting to put a firm plan in place by 2011. He thinks a different approach would be better and stated the long -term monies should be used for a fixed plan. Concerns: • The level of detail is lacking for a lot of reasons and should be noted. (Balsom) • Do we need to see all the detail of the MRP in the budget every year? It doesn't have all the detail the MRP does. (Werner) • We talked about having a hydrograph in the proposal and since it's a requirement of the GCPA, it should be inserted in this document. (Henderson) 2000 LSSF synthesis funding adequate. Action: This was discussed at length yesterday and Kurt said his sense was that the TWG is happy with GCMRC and how they're doing it. MOTION (Proposed by: Bill Werner, seconded by Don Ostler): The Technical Work Group recommends the FY 2009 Annual Budget and Workplan to AMWG for approval at its September 2008 meeting. Representative Stakeholder Enti Vote Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote Bill Persons Scott Rogers Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Y Rick Johnson Grand Canyon Trust absent Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs Y Larry Stevens Gr. Canyons Wildlands Council absent Dennis Kubly Bureau of Reclamation Y Mark Steffen Federation of Fly Fishers A Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe Y John O'Brien Grand Canyon River Guides Y Kerry Christensen Huala ai Tribe Y Bill Werner State of Arizona Y Jan Balsom NPS -GRCA A Christopher Harris State of California absent Norm Henderson NPS -GLNRA A Randy Seaholm State of Colorado absent Steven Begay Navajo Nation absent Anthony Miller State of Nevada Y Jonathan Damp Pueblo of Zuni Y Jay Groseclose State of New Mexico Y VACANT San Juan Southern Paiute absent Robert King State of Utah Y Charley Bulletts Southern Paiute Consortium Y Don Ostler State of Wyoming Y Glen Knowles U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Y Bill Davis CREDA Y Mary Bar er Western Area Power Admin. A Cliff Barrett UAMPS Y Total Yes 16 Total No 0 Total Abstain 4 Total Voting 20