Whetton, Linda A
<br />From:
<br />Sent:
<br />Shane Capron [Capron @wapa.gov]
<br />Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:01 PM
<br />To:
<br />Larry Stevens; Bill Persons; Bill Werner; Perri Benemelis; Heuslein, Amy; Cantley, Garry; Kurt
<br />Dongoske; Christopher S. Harris; James Thiriot; McClain Peterson; William E. Davis; Loretta
<br />Jackson - Kelly; Glen Knowles; Nikola Lash; Emily Omama; Jeff English; Andre Potochnik;
<br />Charley Bulletts; Mark Steffen; Matt Kaplinski; Michael Yeatts; John O'Brien; Rick Johnson;
<br />Henderson, Norm; Mietz, Steven; Clifford Barrett; Leslie James; Andy Makinster; John W.
<br />Shields; Dwight Randolph Seaholm; Ted Kowalski; Jay C. Groseclose; Kubly, Dennis M;
<br />Ostler, Don; Whetton, Linda A; Crawford, Marianne; Ryan, Thomas P; Robert King; Mary
<br />Barger; Clayton Palmer; Kerry Christensen
<br />Cc:
<br />Alpine, Andrea E; McKenzie, Barbara A; Bennett, Glenn E; Fair)ey, Helen; Hamill, John F;
<br />Laura Gagney; Andersen, Matthew E; Grams, Paul E; Mankiller, Serena; Melis, Ted
<br />Subject:
<br />pre -TWG preparation and background on agenda items
<br />TWG - I wanted provide a little more background information on some of the agenda items for the TWG meeting next week and
<br />provide some ideas on how to prepare for the TWG meeting.
<br />GCMRC updates: these are in written form so please take time to read these and come prepared with any questions you might
<br />have, this will be a short Q &A session.
<br />' Develop annual reporting requirements for January 2010 meeting: John Hamill will have a draft of the reporting outline for us to
<br />review before the meeting, this is not posted yet but I'm hoping soon. This is the outline that guides the researchers on what we
<br />would like them to put into their annual reports. Think about what you would like in those reports, format, length, etc. and be
<br />prepared to provide those ideas to GCMRC.
<br />11
<br />L
<br />u
<br />I�
<br />J
<br />Study plans (Fall steady flow and non - native management): The bulk of this meeting is being devoted to reviewing these two
<br />plans which have already undergone TWG review and comment. Thanks to GCMRC and the many cooperators who put a lot of
<br />work into these plans. Our role now is to review the documents and consider recommendations to AMWG. In doing so, we will
<br />discuss the Science Advisor comments, GCRMRC responses to the SAs, and review TWG comments and GCRMC responses
<br />(comment tables). Although some work has been done on revisions post -TWG comment, revised versions of the plans are not yet
<br />available. GCMRC intends to solicit further input at this TWG meeting and then provide a revised draft to TWG sometime this Fall.
<br />Ideally, TWG would recommend approval of these documents in time for AMWG review at their February meeting. Because our
<br />January TWG meeting is very close to the AMWG meeting, I suspect we'll need to consider a web conference sometime later this
<br />year to consider a recommendation. Again, GCMRC is not seeking a recommendation at this current meeting, they recognize that
<br />we have substantial concerns left to be resolved. So, it would be helpful for folks to review the comment tables and the GCMRC
<br />responses to see if you are satisfied with their responses. If not, please be prepared to discuss those at the TWG meeting with the
<br />recommended changes you would like to see made. It is a long list of comments so I suspect we'll just ask TWG members which
<br />comments they would like to discuss and we'll focus on those, or if there are any new comments members would like to make.
<br />Biennial budget process development: I drafted the beginning of a document that we can use to start some discussion on a
<br />description for the budget process (which is based on past documents). Its only a rough start but wanted to get something on
<br />paper to get us going. Some major issues to think about are how to consider changes to the year -two budget, modifications to the
<br />current process such as timelines and the BAHG, among many other issues I think we need to think through a bit more and capture
<br />on paper. I'm not sure how the TWG would like to move forward on this, use the BANG to help develop this paper or a smaller
<br />group of interesting TWG members. The AIF is posted for your review, please bring your good ideas to the meeting on how you
<br />would like to proceed and issues you think we need to address in the document.
<br />TCD and sediment augmentation projects: We will hear an update from Dennis Kubly on these efforts and consider how to
<br />respond to AMWG's motion. This seems like a farily broad motion, so please be thinking on how best the TWG can respond to
<br />AMWG, we need to decide on how to move forward (e.g., an ad hoc, recommendation to AMWG, further study, etc.)
<br />AMWG MOTION: The AMWG recommends to the Secretary of the Interior that Reclamation report on the status of the
<br />TCD and Sediment Augmentation projects to the TWG. The TWG will make a recommendation to the AMWG for
<br />consideration at the spring 2010 AMWG meeting. Motion was passed by consensus.
<br />
|