My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06393
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06393
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:22:35 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:36:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.10.B
Description
Colorado River-Water Projects-Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell-Glen Canyon Adaptive Management-TWG
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
2/17/2005
Title
Budget Ad Hoc Group-GCMRC FY06 Budget and Work Plan Development Question and Response Table
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />00472 <br /> <br />TWG Budget Ad hoc Group <br />GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development <br />Question/Response Table <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />(Norm for this work to accompany implementation of other experimental factors... " <br />Henderson) Please indicate what other experimental factors must be implemented in order <br /> to make this a viable workplan element. If these factors are not included in the <br /> budget is it the recommendation of GCMRC that mecbanical removal not be <br /> implemented in '06? <br /> As indicated in the original experimental design provided to the AMWG in 2002 as <br /> well as numerous interactions with the TWG, AMWG, and various ADHOe groups <br /> of both, attempting to discover which factors are most influential in controlling HBC <br />GCMRC's recruitment logically includes exploring the affect of temperature, dam operations, <br />Response to and non-native interactions, These factors should be explored in a long-term <br />Comment experimental framework, Without attempting to control these other likely important <br />#27 factors in a rigorous design will seriously degrade our ability to determine the effect <br />of non-native control on HBC recruitment dynamics. <br /> We do not necessarily recommend that mechanical removal not proceed in '06, but <br /> again, that decision should be framed in the context of the LTEP, <br />28 B6, can we reduce the number of trips from six to four? Then, reprogram <br />(W AP A) dollars. <br /> This is ill-advised in the context of experimentation to determine the effect of non- <br /> native control on HBC recruitment dynamics since it potentially changes the severity <br /> of the treatment and therefore the response, Council from the science advisors early <br /> on in the development of this project advised to implement a treatment magnitude as <br /> large as possible to have the greatest likelihood of measuring an effect. <br />GCMRC's Additionally, changing the severity of the treatment potentially results in a changed <br />Response to experimental design limiting options for L TEP planning, and ultimately the ability to <br />Comment determine the effect of non-native control on HBC recruitment dynamics, <br />#28 With the above points in mind and a clear understanding that at the present time the <br /> science cannot clearly answer the question of whether or not mechanical removal is <br /> benefiting HBC recruitment dynamics, there is no reason that managers cannot <br /> embrace mechanical removal as a management action that should be implemented at <br /> whatever scale they deem appropriate, Though funds for a management action may <br /> nced to be provided from sources other than AMP funds, <br />29 Line 101 (Translocation of HBe)--No funds are identified for this conservation <br />(BAHG) measure. Will it not be accomplished? <br />GCMRC's That was an oversight and will be added to the budgetlworkplan as per a discussion <br />Response to with the HBC ad hoc group, [Funding is proposed for continuation of this activity in <br />Comment FY 2006, plus evaluation of the conservation measure, as a recommendation from <br />#29 the HBCCP ad hoc group] <br /> Line 106 (Concurrent Estimates HDC)-- The BAHG would like information on <br />30 what products or efforts were funded in FY 04 ($250,000) and FY OS (5200,000) <br />(BAHG) under this line item. No information is provided in Table 8.5 of the workplan or <br />in the accompanying text. We can not determine whether the request for FY 06 <br /> is justified without this information. <br />GCMRC's Funds in FY04 were used to cover costs associated with the Santa Barbara workshop <br /> <br />Document Reference' FY06 Masler Draft AMP Budget - BOR GCMRC 02117/05 II :05 AM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.