Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 12 DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting they are going to write a new MRP in 2011. John said it doesn't have budget implications so it's not on the list. (2) On one of the calls they talked about some issues and wrote in issue #23 so she has some language: For the 2010 -11 workplan, they would like GCMRC to revise the workplan, first that the total USGS burden be identified for each budget line item. The amount of carryover funds be identified for each budget line item. That there would be a crosswalk provided from the 2009 workplan to the 2010 -11 workplans so that the TWG can both identify what projects have been bundled in the 2009 budget and un- bundled in the 2010 -11 budget so that changes in the budget for each item can be understood. GCMRC identify how and where the cuts were made for a budget shortfall. (3) Mary said that for mechanical removal, Loretta Jackson -Kelly had suggested in one of the tribal consultation discussions that there should be tribal funds to have tribal participation and mechanical removal and it had been talked about in the CRAHG meeting. Matthew said he had talked to Loretta and his current understanding was that they would be willing to receive the remains from fish that are removed from the river but they wanted some additional funding to do that and GCMRC does have money available for them to do that. 5. Bill Persons said in previous work plans, GCMRC and USBR have provided expenditures for previous years so if the TWG had an FY2010 workplan, they could see what had been expended on a project in 09, 08, 07, 06, 05. This was done on a regular basis but he hasn't seen it in a couple of years. He would like to see it in the workplan if possible. It helps to see what's been done for the past five years on a project — what was budgeted and what was spent. They had those discussions when they first started talking about how they wanted budget information presented. Dennis said that information is on the website but they're behind this year because they didn't have the spring meeting. Bill said the value is laying them side by side with each other and then side by side with the proposed budgets for the outyears. Bill said he saw how they framed the non - native mechanical removal issue or challenge as one of trying to identify projects as management activities or research activities. He said the other issue is some of the projects are mandated compliance activities. He said that is the bigger part of the issue when it comes down ' to figuring out how to fund these projects. Shane said he didn't want to get into a management action discussion because he doesn't think it's appropriate at this point. He said when they get to that item, it's a compliance issue and that's why Reclamation put it in their portion of the budget. He said the bottom line is that if it has to be funded out of the program this year, so it affects the budget whether it is above or below the line. The longer term issue of management actions is a separate policy discussion. Norm pointed out that removal of warm water non - native removal isn't in the budget. Shane told him this was pushed into the mainstem trip. John said they didn't put anything in for warm water non - native removal or cold water removal. Norm said he felt it was a high priority and the AMWG needs to know about it. Dennis explained that's why a nonnative contingency fund is being started. He said there is a difference of opinion as to whether this is a science program or whether it's a compliance and science and management program. He said the BAHG asked GCMRC which projects they discontinued and where the money went for mainstem mechanical removal but didn't get a response. Matthew said he answered that question in multiple meetings but explain again that there are two primary ways to think about where that funding went, number one is salaries so within goal 2 there are primarily three agencies that get funding, USGS, FWS, and AGFD. All those salaries are growing so that's where the FY09 mechanical removal funding went to and the other project was to provide a little more support for the pit tag antennae for that remotely deployed in the LCR to read pit tags in the absence of people to monitor. Shane said the AMWG approved a two -year rolling budget process at their August 2004 meeting. This is the first year that a two -year budget has been attempted since that approval and developing the budget with two options for a budget process was discussed. First is the rolling budget approved by AMWG that was based on an interest by AMWG members to seek additional funding outside the AMP for unfunded projects. Secondly is a two -year budget that is only modified slightly in year two thus requiring much less effort in the second year saving valuable time and resources to work on other AMP concerns. He felt a motion which stated "TWG recommends that AMWG direct TWG to develop a discussion paper on the pros and cons of 1