Laserfiche WebLink
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 />