Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 17 DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting the PEP on how to move forward with that. Matthew said it seems a little false to present it as the same projects five projects with the same intent they've been conducting in 2009 knowing that a PEP panel will be giving them more direction. Mary said they CRAHG asked that Helen's monitoring be unbundled (line #114) as well. Norm said the issue for him in bundling is the consolidation of the research questions with the i actual monitoring. He feels there is a distinction between core monitoring, actual collection of the data, and the basic status and trends and answering the research questions that are being posed. He thinks they are two separate funding mechanisms. He would like to see separate questions that are being asked so they t could have separate reports and updates on how they're doing with those questions for the research questions and separate from that is the core monitoring which would get its status and trends in general. Status -> Recommendation is taken away based on agreement with GCMRC not to lose the details of those projects if they push them together, specifically for Goal 2. They'll retain technical information in there that the TWG can follow for each of the projects if they're lumped together. He said he would make this an issue for the AMWG and explain the TWG is concerned about core monitoring and that they haven't had a chance 1 to look at a general core monitoring plan yet. Mary said she doesn't disagree as long as the cultural program can show them as separate tasks with the funding also separate. Helen said a lot of these are R &D projects that require the various pieces to make the whole in the end. John Hamill said they are going to be proposed as core monitoring projects and making the assumption that they will go through the TWG for review and approval. 8. Line 58. Shane said this is just and information item for the AMWG and he will make that point to them. Status 4 Item removed. 1 9. Line 77. Status 4 Item removed. 10. Diamond Creek NASQAN Station. Shane said Bob Hart will be reporting on this later. He said this item is being flagged because we may not be able to get water quality information from this station. Status 4 Removed until further discussion following Mr. Hart's presentation. 11. Goal 10 (NEW). Shane said this would be a new start for 2010 -11. The cost could be around $150K and take $116K from line 92. Norm said there wasn't a specific amount as he was leaving that projection up to GCMRC. Members felt it needed more discussion and that a proposal be made and reviewed before a decision could be made. Norm said the reason he suggested the arthropod surveys was because it was a new start and there was an assumed priority for that without consideration of other priorities which may be higher. John Hamill said the proposal should be written up by the agency because it's not GCMRC's job to write proposals. Dennis said he feels a tradeoff analysis should be done and include the Science Advisors to work on this. The group agreed to keep line #19 on the list and gather more information. Status 4 Remove from the list. Norm will work with GCMRC in preparing a proposal for the June meeting. Line 19. The TWG is still concerned about the non - market value. Randy said he wants issues to be kept on an equal basis so that the group can measure apples to apples. He says when people get into the non - market issues, it becomes very subjective. Status 4 Keep on the list. 12. Goal 11 (NEW). Mary said this is related to looking at the HEC -RAS model which was the AMWG motion down to the TWG, down to the CRAHG. The CRAHG did have a recommendation on that but after the CRAHG meeting, there was a discussion that perhaps rather than using the HEC -RAS model they could geomorphological model that could tease out dam operations and facts. The CRAHG agreed to support this as a line item in the budget. Helen said one of the reasons they originally recommended was they got this recommendation from several independent panels which had looked at the program and the way monitoring has been handled in the past. One of the things they really felt strongly about is that it's helpful to have a model in terms of what you expect to see happening so that you can then find out what you think is going on through the results of monitoring. Having this in place would give the program a framework against which they could evaluate their current state of knowledge why the sites are eroding, how fast they're eroding,