Laserfiche WebLink
!I <br />u <br />1 <br />t <br />Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10 <br />DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting <br />up and our $1 million has stayed the same. If there is anything the AMWG can do to bring that issue to the attention of <br />our director, we've brought it their attention but you know how bureaucracies work. (Hamill) <br />Q: Regarding the high flow test synthesis, what do you mean by synthesis? What's in that? (Ostler) <br />A: I think it would take what we've learned out of the last three experiments and try to boil it down into a document that <br />says not just what we learned in 2008 but when you look at three experiments collectively, what's the take -home <br />message about what we've learned and what it implies for future direction of high flows. (Hamill) <br />Q: Does it input predictive tools like modeling so that you could do various scenarios without actually running the test <br />to predict what may happen? (Ostler) <br />A: That's the goal of the integrated flow temperatures sediment modeling project which is separate from that. The <br />preliminary results of that should hopefully be available by the beginning of this fiscal year and there may be ways to <br />integrate some of the output of those models into this synthesis report and maybe this is the appropriate venue to talk <br />about the implications because I think that is clearly within the scope of what we're trying to talk about here. (Hamill) <br />Q: I didn't hear you address the $1 million short for 2010 that you take some cuts off the original budget? (Barger) <br />A: 1 guess what you're talking about when we start our budget process, the first thing I ask my program managers is to <br />look at their ongoing projects and look at what they have coming down the road and what commitments are necessary <br />both from what the workplan says we're supposed to produce, what are staff costs are likely to be, and equipment we <br />have to purchase. When we went through that exercise initially, we came up about $1 million in the hole and so that <br />pretty much took a lot of new starts off the table. We started looking at ways we could save costs to get it back within <br />budget and when we found our proposal to not fund non - native fish control wasn't well received within Reclamation <br />and other places, and so they added it back in and so that was one of the reasons why we have a deficit right now. <br />(Hamill) <br />Q: You mentioned razorback suckers under Goal 3, are you looking for AMP funding or is that something you're going <br />to propose in future budgets? (Mietz) <br />A: No, we're not proposing any money from the AMP to support that (Hamill) <br />TWG Chair Comments: Shane said the goal for the TWG is to forward the preliminary budget to AMWG for <br />their consideration. He said there is a preliminary budget motion in the packet that lays out the basics and <br />there has been some discussion about how specific it needs to be with regard to the 22 issues <br />BAHG Report (Attachment 8b) Dennis said the BAHG always goes through a series of conference calls <br />with GCMRC and the BAHG to develop an initial budget. The CRAHG develops their recommendations and <br />provides to the BAHG. The BAHG goes through a very laborious process of line -by -line through the <br />previous year's spreadsheet developing questions for GCMRC and Reclamation to use in their development <br />of the initial draft budget. They also go back through the line items again and having more interaction so <br />that at the end GCMRC understands all the BAHG concerns so that the BAHG can make a <br />recommendation to the TWG. Then the next stage is for the TWG to develop a recommendation for the <br />AMWG. He said what they have in the summary report are the highest level issues, not every question was <br />asked and answered, but they think they're the issues the TWG needs to consider in developing its <br />recommendation. <br />Shane said there are 22 issues and two additional ones that were included that hadn't gotten fleshed out <br />too much and GCMRC also provided some responses to the questions. Shane said he thought there were <br />three general ways of approaching this: 1) the issues are forwarded to AMWG and ask for their feedback. If <br />the TWG does that, he didn't think they would get anything back that's very specific and it may not be that <br />helpful to their deliberations. So if the TWG gets a workplan from GCMRC during the first week of June, it <br />may not change very much from what the TWG may want it based on their concerns. If that's the case, <br />there is no real time to work with the BAHG to make changes before they have to run it through the system <br />' to get it to AMWG. He felt the more specific the TWG could be in providing a recommendation to AMWG, <br />there will be success in getting specific items implemented. 2) The second way requires the TWG to be a <br />more specific in forwarding those items of more concern. Shane said the some of the 22 items are not <br />' specific right now and don't have decision points. 3) The third way and Shane's preference is that they be <br />very specific and each of the 22 items or a larger list be put in as a line item motion so that they're very <br />clear exactly what they want to happen. Shane said another concern is the list is very wordy and while it <br />' may be appropriate for a BAHG report, it may not be appropriate for something that goes up to the AMWG. <br />He tried to slim them down to the essence of each one and for the ones that he thought did have a decision <br />point the TWG could consider, he put in a draft decision point so they could package something more <br />