Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

jGlen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 15 DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting 1 group agrees that an item stays on, they should ask GCMRC and /or BOR if they agree to make the change. If not, then it stays on this list. If they agree, then it comes off the list and stays in the minutes. Mary Barger said she had e- mailed Shane another item last week but said she didn't see it on the list. Shane said it didn't make it on the list yesterday. She said she wanted it added today so he added #32: The emphasis of the proposed budget is in DASA and sediment; the AMWG should evaluate the prioritization of program areas (to satisfy compliance concerns). Dennis said he thought Mary was echoing a broader discussion that was held in the BAHG which is what was in the TWG's report to the AMWG at the budget meeting either in April or August and one of the suggestions was to start out with an evaluation of what has the TWG done to address AMWG's priorities, what have they learned to produce that kind of an assessment at the outset to get them to have an exchange with the TWG. He said that it seems too often the TWG produces a report, they don't give the ' TWG any feedback, and the TWG goes on thinking they're meeting AMWG's needs. He said the group needs to be better about reflecting that. He also said the group starts with the line item budget proposal from BOR and GCMRC but what they don't start with is how do these projects all fit together and what are the linkages. For example, he said he was having a hard time moving to an arthropod monitoring because he can't see the linkages in the terrestrial riparian ecosystem than he can in the aquatic foodbase. It's very clear the fish are the issue and GCMRC is trying to find out whether energy is limiting and without having ' the birds on the terrestrial side. He couldn't find a high value in that. Shane said from the list of 22 items, he picked out six high priority items that he feels the TWG should 1 discuss: 1. CPI 4. Non - native removal ' 6. Whether the treatment plan is capped at $500K or increased by CPI 7. Unbundling projects 11. The economic study 12. The geomorphological model 16. The cultural program 23. The budget process He said there were others that came after and the group didn't have time to debate them. He said the entire list could be forwarded to AMWG. Some of the easier items that are potentially resolved, for example #13 and #14. From what he understood from GCMRC was that they generally agreed to try to implement that and work with the group through the workplan. He said some items are just informational and he would highlight those which need specific AMWG attention. Shane said the other way would be for the group to go through all the items and thoroughly discuss them. Discussion: 1. Line 1. Agreement 4 GCMRC and USBR will work on developing a current estimate for the CPI 2. Line 15. Agreement 4 BOR will do it. Dennis said there needs to be a footnote that describes there are times when the TWG chair's expenses are covered and other times when they're not just to educate the AMWG on what this means. 3. Line 19. Agreement 4 Dennis said that compliance needs should be kept in the compliance line but could be increased based on future experimental flow fund needs. 4. Line 24: Action: Take out line 64. Shane said the difference between recommendation 1 and 2 is that recommendation 2 would result in there being two removal trips versus one removal trip under recommendation 1. The would both move non - native back under the GCMRC side of the budget and recommendation 2 would results in two trips versus one trip.