Laserfiche WebLink
' Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 18 <br />DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting <br />' under what circumstances they may or may not be eroding, and so forth, and be able to evaluate that <br />against predictive models. Dennis said the treatment plan is funded for five years and so he was curious <br />that at the time the model was developed and functional, where would it be in the treatment of the sites that <br />' the model would be used on. He also wondered about GCMRC's response to an additional 2.5% across the <br />board off their budget, particularly if they use their CPI. He asked Helen if someone had explained the <br />geormorphological model development to the full TWG. Helen said no. In that case, Dennis advocated the <br />words be changed from "develop" to "evaluate" and that the TWG be allowed to hear a perspective modeler <br />iat its June meeting to help them in their evaluation. John Hamill said he wasn't comfortable that there be <br />clear agreement on what the scope and objectives of this model should be. GCMRC has had a lot of <br />frustration in getting monitoring programs and getting R &D off the ground and there is a lot of contention <br />around that and he doesn't want to be put in a position where they're launching off into another R &D project <br />until they've brought consensus about what this project should achieve, especially with the two <br />management agencies that are responsible for cultural resources fully support what they're about to do. He <br />doesn't feel they're there yet. Mary wants to leave this in but have Shane inform the AMWG in his report. <br />Shane presented a recommendation and asked for a show of support. The majority voted for the <br />recommendation. The following people abstained: Amy Heuslein, Mike Yeatts, and Kerry Christensen. <br />Status 4 Recommendation: TWG recommends that AMWG direct TWG and GCMRC to develop a general <br />proposal incorporating technical information for a geomorphological model to evaluate dam effects on <br />cultural sites. <br />13. Line 127. Status -> Remove from the list. GCMRC will work with Steve Mietz on this project. <br />14. Line 128. Status 4 Remove from the list. GCMRC will work with Steve Mietz on this project. <br />' 15. High Flow Experiment. Status 4 Removed from the list. This will be handled as a policy issue for the <br />AMWG. <br />16. Cultural Program. Shane said there were three recommendations that came from the CRAHG for <br />additional funding or projects. The following were the most recent changes: <br />1) Line 114: add back in $70K to the NPS <br />2) NEW: Preservation Treatments, $36,450 <br />3) NEW: Tribal 106 support, $60K <br />Shane said he could see two approaches for addressing this program: 1) more information to discuss in <br />June, or 2) make a recommendation to have funding for these items. He asked Mary to address the <br />projects. <br />1. The CRAHG took a look at this project and decided the $70K needed to go back to the Park Service to <br />support their part of the program and Jen Dierker is here to answer questions about that. <br />2. Under the preservation treatments it was felt that right now the $500K that Mike Berry has is also for <br />treatment but it's for excavation so treatment can also include check -dams, fixing trailing, and all kinds of <br />preservation type treatments. It was felt the program wasn't being responsive to the treatments that occur <br />' so that's where it came up that check dam maintenance hasn't been done for years and there is a list of <br />sites that need check dam work. She passed out the proposal the Park Service had put together for that <br />work. <br />1 3. Tribal 106 support had an estimate of $60K that the tribes would participate in the monitoring of <br />archaeological sites in the canyon and the tribes did agree to do this. Mike Berry said the issue is that they <br />are not doing all the components of the treatment plan as it applies. They're concentrating the first two <br />' years on data recovery which is terribly expensive and the $500K gets eaten up very quickly in data <br />recovery. He said the other big issue is the fact that they are not working on the dedicated monitoring <br />program. He said they have a recommendation right now for excavating or data recovery on 54 sites over <br />the next 10 years. Those sites are prioritized in accordance with degree of erosion and significance of sites. <br />The plan was to re- juggle the priority list every year based on monitoring. They have been doing that as <br />