Rationale for Revisions to 2004 Budget Proposal 

The TWG is being asked to recommend to the AMWG the entire 2004 line item 

budget, including power revenues and appropriations requests. 

Holocene mapping – The budget ad hoc group, programmatic agreement group, and 

GCMRC support elimination of this project both in 2003 and 2004. 

Captive breeding program evaluation is being accelerated to 2003 instead of 2004 and 

the 2004 costs of $50,000 will now be shown in 2003 budget. We believe FWS should 

be tasked with evaluating conservation biology concerns, grow-out of young fish 

strategy, and physical facilities availability as part of that evaluation. The $50,000 cost 

that was shown in the 2004 budget was zeroed out and those funds moved to the 2004 

line item of experimental flows. We suggest keeping open the potential for the use of a 

refugium rather than captive breeding augmentation of existing population as the 

outcome of this evaluation. At the TWG meeting November 7, 2002, Don Metz (FWS) 

reported that the Albuquerque FWS office is agreeable to requesting appropriations for 

2005 to implement the results of this evaluation. 

Control Network and Channel Mapping – This project is ongoing and GCMRC 

concluded some reduction could be accommodated in 2004 to facilitate the experimental 

flow effort. 

AMWG/TWG Unsolicited Proposals and Tribal Outreach Effort – In 2004, 

unsolicited proposals are expected to be minimal if the experimental flow proposal is 

implemented. GCMRC requested some amount of funding remain in this line item for 

emergency use. 

The Tribal outreach effort was reduced as a result of GCMRC’s offer to the tribes to be 

involved in experimental flow monitoring and research work. 

Appropriations Requests – The request for USGS appropriations to support the 

GCDAMP is an action the AMWG has recommended for the last several years. The 

purpose of this recommendation has been both to augment existing monitoring and 

research activities and to support experimental flow activities. In the past we have 

identified specific line items that would benefit from any of these requested 

appropriations. 

As explained in the cover memo, the current thinking of both GCMRC and the budget ad 

hoc group is that funding the science plan of the experimental flow proposal is of a higher 

priority than any of the research items identified in the July 2002 budget proposal. Those 

items are shown in Table 1, and include Kanab ambersnail taxonomy, captive breeding 

program, fine grained sediment storage and transport, LCR integrated studies, library 

operations, and the decision support system. Of the $2.16 million in appropriations 

requested for 2004 in Table 2, $475,000 is identified for tribal participation and 

consultation and the remaining $1.685 million is targeted for experimental flow 
monitoring and research, in line with the higher priority of the experimental flow science 

plan. All this is working within the “bottom line budget” of $11.014 million 

recommended by the AMWG at their July 2002 meeting. We recommend that the 

TWG recommend to the AMWG the line item details shown in Table 2, the 

“Revised 2004 Budget recommended by TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group (November 

2002)”. 

If the decision is made to not carry out the proposed experimental flows outlined in the 

recently released Environmental Assessment, then the use of any USGS appropriations in 

2004 changes dramatically. In that case, it probably makes sense to reconvene a 

discussion at the TWG level to address the most pressing research needs, weighing the 

importance of the research activities shown in Table 1 with the need to fund future 

experimental flows. Regardless of the budget situation, it does makes sense to recognize 

that some degree of flexibility is needed in enacting the AMP budget, to respond to both 

changing resource conditions and to uncertain budget conditions. Adjustments to each 

year’s budget is carried out in a real-time manner, keeping an eye on the list of most 

important activities as defined by our many discussions, planning efforts, and research 

sequencing. We intend on doing a better job of keeping the TWG informed prior to 

budget recommendation decisions, and as always, appreciate your involvement in the 

AMP.