Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

' Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4 DRAFT Minutes of July 16 -17, 2008, Meeting permitting and to Carl Walters. The reviews have started to come back. Matthew said he would send the information to the TWG. Bill Davis expressed frustration in not seeing the report before it goes to the AMWG. John Hamill said the AMWG passed a motion and he was frustrated by Bill's reaction. Matthew said he has received approval from the upper level Park Service. Jan said they have to be very careful whatever they report. Jan said Matthew may be surprised that he would get approval. There was a ' lot of discussion about the solicitation and what goes in the proposal. Matthew said it was their intention to submit a full proposal to use motors in a non - motorized season. Kurt said that this will continue to be discussed between Park Service and GCMRC. ' Pilot Study. Matthew went into more detail about the pilot study. He listed the various methods they plan to use in conducting the pilot study. New Agenda Item: National Park Service Management at Grand Canyon. Jan Balsom presented a PPT, "National Park Service Management at Grand Canyon National Park (Attachment 5). She provided an update on the lawsuit with the River Runners for Wilderness, et al. vs. the National Park Service. She said 1 more information can be found at the following web site: http: / /www.rrfw.org. Matthew said he attended a meeting last week in which Steve Martin and Martha Hahn assured him they were ready to sign the permit to use motorized equipment in the non - motorized season. Jan said she would check with Steve and Martha ' on the permit. FY09 Budget and Workplan (Attachment 6a) ' Bureau of Reclamation. Dennis said the Budget Ad Hoc Group held six conference calls. At the current time there is no recommendation from the BANG. At the next TWG meeting he would like to discuss a more effective budget process and how the BAHG works. Some BAHG members would like to be involved in developing the spreadsheet which could also be discussed. The BAHG process is in place and has been agreed to by the AMWG. He thinks for the first time a 2 -year budget should be done and, if so, they really ' need to get started. There were nine issues discussed. Dennis proceeded with a PPT presentation, (Attachment 6b). This budget doesn't include translocation but they hope to have that resolved before the AMWG meeting. He said the LTEP is still on hold. ' Develop a better budget process for the next TWG meeting and functions of the BAHG. Norm asked what happens to the unspent tribal dollars. Dennis said any funds left in Reclamation's portion ' of the budget go into the Experimental Flow Fund. Mary said that Navajo Nation still hasn't submitted a proposal. Apparently they are trying to hire someone to ' put something together, but Mike Berry is also trying to get something done. The question came up that if Navajo can't spend their monitoring money, is there a way for the other tribes to access the money rather than having it go into the Experimental Flow Fund. This is something that Mike is still awarding funds for ' FY08. Thus far, the tribes have not received their funding. Dennis asked how long contracting has been involved. Mike Yeatts said Hopi sent their proposal in January 2008. Mike Berry will do further checking and let Dennis know. CRAHG Report. Mary Barger said the CRAHG still hasn't looked at the funds but are committed to doing mitigation. GCMRC's budget is proposing to finish out a lot of projects. Helen wanted to do some synthesis for some projects. The CRAHG agreed finishing the projects was a good idea. There will probably be a workshop in 2009. They asked to review the monitoring protocols and there was some question when monitoring begins by GCMRC. I The tribal representatives will report back to Dennis if they would like to have their funds committed as individual entities rather than one lump sum.