Laserfiche WebLink
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10 <br />Minutes of July 16 -17, 2008, Meeting <br />Motion Passes <br />Jan Balsom (Abstaining): There is not enough detail and whether projects would be in conflict with our policies. <br />We do either a conditional approval and can't approve with the minimum required. <br />Norm Henderson (Abstaining): No additional comments. <br />• Mark Steffen (Abstaining): I've already distributed a minority report with my concerns. <br />• Mary Barger (Abstaining): I concur with Jan that the level of detail is not there. We should be getting a higher <br />level of detail. I depend on the ad hoc groups and individuals who are reviewing. The information is not there <br />and don't know what's happening there. I'm really uncomfortable with that. That's a concern of mine. I'm still <br />concerned that the LSSF happens. We had talked about whether additional funding would come in. I'm also <br />' concerned that the MRP is being held up because of permitting problems. <br />General Core Monitoring Plan for GCDAMP. John Hamill said they've been trying to finalize the plan. <br />Helen worked with the Core Monitoring AHG some time ago. The GCMRC agreed to a core monitoring <br />istep process. John said it was becoming difficult to develop within their staff but were able to get help <br />from Dr. Bill Halvorson. Dr. Halvorson has a degree in ecology from ASU. Dr. Halvorson presented a <br />PPT entitled, "General Core Monitoring Plan for the GCD -AMP" (Attachment 8). <br />General Core Monitoring Plan Table of Contents <br />Chapter 1 — Introduction and Background <br />Chapter 2 — Conceptual Ecosystem Models <br />Chapter 3 — Framework and Context of the Core Monitoring Program <br />Chapter 4 — General Long -Term Core Monitoring Proposals <br />' Chapter 5 — Data Management <br />Chapter 6 — Data Analysis and Reporting <br />Chapter 7 — Administration & Implementation of Core Monitoring Program <br />' Chapter 8 — Budget and Schedule <br />Chapter 9 — Literature Cited. <br />John said they would have a draft ready for the TWG's fall meeting. They would like to update the <br />AMWG at their winter meeting and have a plan the program could endorse in spring 2009. John feels it <br />would get everyone on the same page for monitoring. <br />Ad Hoc Group Updates: <br />Sediment AHG. John O'Brien said the Sediment AHG will try and bring a recommendation by the next <br />' TWG Meeting (possibly November) then TWG will review those. He said that if he doesn't intend to <br />submit a recommendation, then the TWG can discuss in October and make recommendations for <br />GCMRC and AMWG. <br />CRAHG/PA Update. Mary Barger said there was a PA meeting and a follow -up the second day. The first <br />day they talked about the PA being rewritten for ACHP and SHPO and there was a lot of discussion on <br />how the AMP fits into the 106 Compliance. They didn't feel the AMP should be part of the PA and that <br />the AMP should put together a MOA. The CRAHG will write that so they need advice or direction from <br />TWG to write an MOA on how the AMP fits with the PA. <br />Dennis asked if it was a change in budget. Jan told him the SHPO and ACHP don't have any legal <br />authority outside 106 compliance. They can't be involved with anything other than 106; it's a way to fund <br />things. They don't feel they can sign off on anything without NHPA. Dennis said they should bring it as a <br />' proposal to the TWG and then it goes up the line for further discussion. <br />John Hamill stated this group has no authority to enter into an agreement with a FACA committee. <br />' GCMRC provided a lot of comments about their role in this process and he didn't understand why that <br />was taken out of the GCPA. Mary said the GCPA was taken out of the document. They said that <br />