Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4 DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting • Steve Mietz said there has been a change in direction and shifting the science emphasis and noticed comments all over the board. He asked whether a statement could be made to that effect. John said they could capture some of the history in the MRP revision in a short paragraph on how they shifted from an LTEP to an EA. ' • Bill Davis said this is supposed to be a plan for 2007 -2011 and asked why the plans couldn't be updated so the SSP is current. John said it was his intent to do that but it was naive without opening up a lot of other issues and he didn't want this to be diversion of what was going on in the TWG. Bill questioned the value of an SSP that's out of date. John said it it's still a good plan but doesn't think it's worth updating to include all the changes. ' • Page 6, line 19. Norm said there is an obligation to conclude one science activity for each GCDAMP goal and he just wondered if that is still the intent because the budget proposed for 2011 -12 doesn't fit with that overall direction. John said at the time there wasn't anything being done relative to Goal 3. He said there wasn't an ' ironclad commitment that every goal would have it but generally they would try to have something in there for every goal due to financial constraints or whatever. • Page 7, line 15. Norm said there is a goal or vision of updating the SCORE report every five years along with a Knowledge Assessment Report and he didn't see this in the 2011 -12 budget. John said he thinks a new ' knowledge assessment should be done in the FYI timeframe to correspond with the updating of this plan. Norm said that if the SCORE report isn't going to be updated every five years, he feels new language needs to be included. • Page 7, Figure 2. Amy suggested it would be helpful if there were dates for products included in the figure or table so they can see a good snapshot of what's going on. ' Shane said he would like to have a management ad hoc group that would look at these types of issues and what pieces need to fit together for the next five years. Randy said the AMWG should be consulted before the TWG heads down different paths. MRP Amendment Comments: John said the format addresses the updates on the EA, the Shortage BO, and the EA on operation of GCD. The EA specified two basic activities: 1) a HFE in March 2008, and 2) a MLFF operation with steady flows in September or October for the period of 2008 -2012. He said GCMRC ' activities are described in detail along with the SSQs and the list of studies associated with the HFE science plan in Tables 2 and 3. It also indicates when the results are expected and a commitment that GCMRC will do a synthesis of the 1994, 2004, and 2008. GCMRC will work with the TWG and the Secretary of the ' Interior on when to do another HFE. The MLFF with steady flows is basically to implement the near shore ecology study and to supplement that with clarification on the flow regimes they would likely see in conjunction with that. He said Matthew Andersen is in the process of starting discussions about that in the next two months and there would be a science plan that would look at fall steady flows and near shore ecology and how those studies would be integrated by July 2009. John asked for comments about GCMRC's response to the provisions of the EA and the ROD. He said GCMRC's responses are in italics. Comments on GCMRC Science Activities • Page 3, line 15. Norm wants the National Park Service listed there. Mike Yeatts said Navajo Nation should also be included since it's their land. John will make the additions. • Page 4, line 16. Steve Mietz wanted "to look at mainstem monitoring" included. Matthew concurred. • Page 4, line 7. Dennis said that `Reclamation and the AMP will continue ... "should be changed because FWS is actually doing the monitoring. John said this was language given to them from FWS. • Page 4, 45. Bill Davis referenced the wording "detailing current information ...,"and asked if GCMRC is looking worldwide for what people are doing. He feels the group needs to reach out to see what methods are already being used and if they could be useful to this program. He wants to see some language included pertaining to his concern. Matthew said the short term plans include techniques from around the world. ' • Page 5, line 12. Norm said there is a statement about "transfer of funding ..." and he thinks there are probably some differences of opinion and wanted to know where John wants to have that discussion. John said he left the language ambiguous because he knows this is an issue probably debated through the whole budget cycle and beyond. He feels a strategy is needed on how they're going to transfer some research to management and non- native fish control could involve into a major activity in this program with serious financial implications. • Dennis echoed Norm's sentiments and said they could do it a different way by identifying, as a closing sentence, 1 the process that will lead to whether GCMRC's proposal is adopted or not This would involve the recommendation from the AMWG and perhaps a decision by the Secretary due to having technical, policy, and budget implications.