BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 1

Budget Comments and Meeting Notes for June 14‐15, 2016 TWG Meeting

Revised June 9, 2016

BAHG Call Notes May 31, 2016 (2‐4 p.m. MDT)

BAHG Chair:  Shane Capron

Participants:  Jan Balsom, Cliff Barrett, Dr. David Braun, Kathleen Callister, Marianne Crawford, Kurt Dongoske, Helen

Fairley, Leslie James, John Jordan, Clayton Palmer, Seth Shanahan, Larry Stevens, Rosemary Sucec, Scott VanderKooi,

Kurt Dongoske, Kirk Young, David Rogowski, Robert King, Craig Ellsworth, Joe Miller, Paul Harms, Peggy Roefer

Continued on June 8, 2016 (2‐4 p.m. MDT)

BAHG Chair:  Shane Capron

Participants:  Linda Whetton, Cliff Barrett, Mike Yeatts, Vineetha Kartha, Kirk Young, David Rogowski, Kevin Dahl, Kathy

Callister, John Jordan, David Braun, Rosemary Sucec, Bill Chada, Jessica Neworth, Scott Vanderkooi, Leslie James, Joe

Miller, Helen Fairly, Joel Sankey,  Clayton Palmer, Randy Seaholm,  

Notes May 31: The following contains notes in red for each agenda item. We were able to make it part way through our

list of items but will need to meet again next week. When these notes are sent out we will also provide a doodle poll for

another 2 hour call next week.  We also identified that we will spend more time on the next call reviewing projects not

funded or partially funded in 2016 and what funds may be available for 2017 to better understand if money is available

for projects like the trout monitoring and an expanded Science Advisor budget, for example. There were a number of

additional budget needs identified and a number of questions about current expenditures. DOI will work to prepare

tables for this discussion for the next call.  

Notes June 8: Reclamation did provide an updated table for this call and Kathy Callister was able to have a few minutes

to describe it and it is attached here. After review of the issues described below we believe the BAHG has reached

agreements with DOI and GCMRC on the major budget issues, however some issues remain controversial and may come

up again at the TWG (e.g., Project 4, budget items in Appendix 4). However, the following document provides discussion

and resolutions on the following items. Unresolved fully is the extent of the proposed Science Advisor budget for 2017

and the funding available to support that work. There appears to be some available funding on the Reclamation side, but

the extent will not be fully understood until the TWG meeting. GCMRC was able to find funds to support the continued

fish work that had been underfunded, and expects the fishery PEP review will provide further guidance on some of the

monitoring trips in question such as the juvenile chub monitoring (JCM). Both GCMRC and Reclamation agreed to bring

revised 2017 budget tables to the TWG for review and recommendation to AMWG.  

Attachments: GCMRC response on Project 4, Reclamation budget tables.  

From Comments

Kurt

Dongoske

CRAHG

5/17/16: The Experimental Fund has $569,507.00 for FY17, if that is not expended it is carried over to the

Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund. Is this written in stone or can a percentage of the carryover be

requested for cultural resource activities? The CRAHG believes that it makes sense to be able to use some of

the experimental funding for cultural work. It looks like there will be more than 1.6 million in the Native Fish

Contingency Fund; is this amount in anticipation of the 2016 carryover or does it also 2017 Experimental

Funds? The CRAHG would also like to know if any of 2016 Experimental Fund was used for experimental

purposes or will it all be carryover? #from what we think we all understand, none of the experimental fund

was used for fisheries activities this year, so it should be intact and BOR will provided updated numbers at

the next call to confirm where we are today.

 The CRAHG would like to know the status of the $250,000.00 allocated for Acoustic Flow Meters but

was never used. BOR believes that was spent, about 245k, they will follow up.

 Tribal Synthesis project (D.2.5) – CRAHG would like to know the status of this project. Will Reclamation

be issuing an RFP or can the CRAHG assist Reclamation in designing the scope of work? The CRAHG

requests an update on this project because there is $50,000.00 allocated for 2016, but no new
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 2

information on this project. #This project was under the BOR budget, but was never implemented.

Money could be used to fund the TEK project with the SA program, similar proposed workshop and

review could address this, additional conversation needed and Dr. Braun will follow up with DOI and

tribes to see if this is a possible avenue to fund the SA project and to begin this work, unclear if the SA

project would take the place of this project or whether further work would be needed.

 Annual integrated river trip (D.2.6) – CRAHG wants to know if this integrated river trip will be planned

for FY17. If not, can the funds be reprogrammed? CRAHG recommends that this issue should be

discussed among the tribes about the need for a 2017 integrated river trip. Currently, it appears as

though a 2016 integrated river trip will not happen; if so, those funds need to be reallocated. #Not

implemented in 2016, 16 funds may be available for other purposes, 17 funds are already in the budget

and is expected there will be a trip in 17.

 Reclamation’s funding of Project 4 (D.2.3) ‐ This project examines deposition of aeolian sand from HFE‐

created sand bars on historic properties within the area of potential effect of future dam operations.

The primary objectives of element 4.2. are to draft and implement a monitoring plan that meets

requirements for monitoring effects of dam operations to cultural resources relative to the National

Historic Preservation Act and Grand Canyon Protection Act. Given that Reclamation is currently in the

process of drafting a new Programmatic Agreement (PA) should this project continue to be funded if it

ultimately does not meet the needs of compliance as defined in a new PA. The CRAHG believes that

GCMRC’s role in complying with any of the stipulations that will come out of the new PA needs to be

determined soon because any monitoring of cultural resources under the NHPA or the GCPA will be

funded through this program. The continuation of developing a monitoring program that does not

include assessing historic property integrity is a serious concern for the CRAHG.  The question of

continuing to fund a monitoring program that in the end does not meet the compliance needs of

Reclamation should be a serious issue for the BAHG. According to the work plan, the draft monitoring

plan will make a recommendation of the sample of archaeological sites that should be monitored, but

stakeholders (presumably including the BOR, NPS, SHPO, ACHP and tribes) will need to work very

closely with GCMRC in year 1 of the project to come to agreement on the monitoring protocol and set

of sites that is ultimately monitored. CRAHG would like to know from GCMRC if the stakeholders have

been meaningfully consulted on the selection of sites to be monitored? #There was a meeting last

summer to review the workplan and the sites. We integrated the discussion below on Aeolian sand

research here as well. It is complicated by the fact that the project is part of a larger piece of work

looking at much more than Aeolian sand and this is the last year of the 3 year project with most of the

funds going to wrap the project up. The question will be whether to continue the research/monitoring

into the next workplan, and thus the group agreed that this discussion would be best to have this

fall/winter on whether this component of the monitoring should continue into the 18‐20 workplan once

we have a new PA in place.

From Kurt Dongoske on June 7:  Vineetha and Shane – I still have serious reservations about continuing

to fund project 4 in FY17 especially since the recent USGS publication suggests to me that they are

documenting and quantifying geomorphological processes that have been operant in the Grand Canyon

for millions of years, regardless of the presence of a dam or not. Unfortunately, I can’t be on the

conference call of the BAHG tomorrow to present my position, but want the both of you to be aware of

my position. We are spending close of a 1⁄2 million dollars to monitor natural processes with very little, if

any, useful information coming back to the stakeholders. This continued funding of this project needs to

be seriously debated among the stakeholders in a venue that is not a conference call.

Bill Chada: Arizona SHPO asked not to include Aeolian sand in description of APE. APE needs to tie to

project not a side process such as Aeolian sand. Leslie and Mike both articulated concerns for the

project, progress of PA and LTEMP, and that we are in a between area right now.  Randy, depends on

how much beach building will occur, because the wind will do what it will. We will create sand bars as

we can, so this seems too indirect. Program has limited funds, thus is this the right work to be doing

(Leslie)? Randy brought up additional issues that need to be discussed before the next workplan is
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 3

implemented, and additional discussion was had regarding the monitoring plan being developed, and

Scott mentioned that it will need to be updated as LTEMP is finalized.  

*BAHG decided not to make changes to the project for 2017, that it can continue and complete, but

that a comprehensive review/discussion will occur before moving forward with the next workplan. Kurt

was not at the BAHG meeting to voice further concern but we recognize that he, or other TWG

members may disagree and ask for changes in 17.  

 GCMRC’s Project 12 is a project to evaluate historical changes in the distribution of plants significant to

tribes, and some tribes are formally cooperating in this effort. Which tribes are “formally cooperating”

in this project and what was the outcome of the tribal meeting with GCMRC about this project at the

last AMWG meeting? #Scott: recommended they take this off line with GCMRC and the tribes to

discuss.

 What is status of Tribal TEK project (Reclamation budget) and was any funding used in 2015 or planned

to be used in 2016? #Pilot for last year, changes in staffing and they still want to continue the project,

and would like to proceed. So we will see what progress can be made, or whether there will be funds

available from this project not being implemented during the 16 workplan.

 How much funding was used for Non‐Native Fish removal consultation in 2015? Could some of this

funding or carryover, if it exists, be used to work on resolving issues with the old NNFR MOA/LTEMP PA

and the fact that live fish removal is no longer a viable mitigation measure? #tribes want to stay

involved in this, there was funding set aside to revisit nonnative fish MOA, further conversations to find

out exactly what was spent and done on this.  

 What is the status of the $20,000.00 to support tribal NRHP nomination funding in 2015 and if there is

remaining funding can it be carried forward?  #GC listed as TCP, need to follow up? #probably not

spent, follow up needed.

Randy

Seaholm

(WAPA 3)

5/20/16:  Attached is a spreadsheet containing changes we would like to see made to the FY 17 budget and

related documents.  We have not suggested specific dollar amounts to allow some latitude in reallocating

funds once our comments have been addressed.  Briefly our proposed changes and reasoning are as

follows. #Generally discussed the first two, but after looking at the details we understand the concept but

need more input from Randy on his specific issues for this budget cycle, we suspect he is raising concerns

that may be more ready for discussion for the next budget cycle, these are important concepts to

remember.

1. A project first and foremost must fit within the laws that govern the allocation, appropriation,

development and exportation of the waters of the Colorado River Basin.  No project should be included

that seeks to alter or misinterpret any of those laws.  There is a New Project, T6 in Appendix 4 of the FY

2015‐17 Budget document dealing with equalization that has been suggested but not funded.  We

believe this proposed project is clearly outside this criterion and should be completely removed from

the documents.    

2. Any project should be confined to the Colorado River Ecosystem and specifically to understanding how

dam operations could be modified to benefit both power and downstream resources.  Since the

maximum release from the dam for purposes of the GCAMP is 45,000 cfs, projects should be focused on

resources at or below this flow level.  Projects above this flow level should be funded from sources

other than GCAMP funds.  We would further suggest that studies that go outside the CRE into other

river basins or involve work above Lake Powell or below Lake Mead not be considered and if so,

absolutely done with funds other than GCAMP.  This would be consistent with funding guidance

provided early on in the program but which has since become lost or blurred over time.

3. Projects should not overlap or consider work that cannot reasonably benefit resources within the CRE in

GCNP or GCNRA.  Towards this end the aeolian sand studies in our estimation, while they may be

interesting, are not going to provide a useful tool or information that will benefit the GCAMP.  Wind
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 4

does what wind will do.   Furthermore, a lot of the sand conservation work, plus the current vegetative

monitoring program, which includes identifying the impacts of HFE’s on vegetation, make aeolian sand

studies unnecessary.   If aeolian sand studies continue outside funding should be obtained, GCAMP

funds should not be used.  The GCAMP funds freed up could help advance some of the fishery projects

that Arizona Game and Fish mentioned as underfunded. #see comment above for Aeolian sand

discussion.

(WAPA 3) Criteria for Review: Scientific requirement or merit

Subject: Aeolian Sand Project

Please identify the need to continue Project 4.1. Quantifying connectivity along the fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales in FY17. The TWP identifies the primary objective of this project is to explain

how connectivity along the fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope continuum varies spatially throughout the river corridor

and to determine if this connectivity has changed during the recent decades of restricted power plant

operation and the occurrence of controlled floods. A recent paper published by Collins et al. 2015 in Earth

Surface Processes and Landforms concludes that “aeolian deposition, even with anthropogenic forcing via

fluvial sand‐bar building high flow dam releases, was found to be generally insufficient to offset the effects

of precipitation‐induced gullying.” Please identify the need of spending $252,600 in FY17 to continue

studying aeolian deposition resulting from the 2012 HFE Protocol when the latest findings regarding this

project indicate that this mechanism does not occur with the frequency or magnitude to offset

precipitation‐induced erosion of archeological sites below Glen Canyon Dam. #same as above

Bill

Stewart

TAHG

(WAPA 1)

(WAPA 2)

5/17/16: TAHG, as requested in the April 22 email below we have been tasked to provide input on the FY17

budget/workplan to the BAHG by tomorrow.  The only feedback I received was from Chris Budwig and his

concerns were either already being addressed in the current work plan or should be brought up with the

new work plan.  The only other item the BAHG should address in the FY17 work plan is the shortage of

funding for project 9.1 (Lees Ferry monitoring).  Funding for project 9.1 drops from $212,700 in FY16 to

$76,900 in FY17.   As my last hurrah before I depart from AZGFD, I suggested we make the following

recommendation to BAHG.  #group discussed the larger issue of underfunding and the timing of the PEP

review being a bit late. There is scientific disagreement on best approaches for sampling, but GCMRC

acknowledges that additional funding is needed to cover the trout monitoring identified here as well as the

other associated projects that was being supported in part by the Natal Origins project (see below). Scott

Vanderkooi will work with staff to come up with a plan using carry over and other money to try to make

these projects whole for 17, so that we have time to do the PEP review this summer and fall and evaluate

how best to proceed for the 18‐20 workplan. This was the last subject we made it to.  

Day 2: Scott, money has freed up, enough for 3 trips for the JCM, monitoring for both rainbow trout

abundance and humpback chub abundance. Detail is a bit uncertain, but will take form a bit more after the

PEP review. For project 9.1, money was retained, but moved into 2 other places, money is still there in the

budget and will continue (concurrence by Rogowski).  

The TAHG requests that the BAHG recommends to increase funding in the FY17 budget for Lees Ferry

Rainbow Trout monitoring (project 9.1) to levels similar to FY15 and FY16.   This project supports the long

term (25 years) Rainbow Trout monitoring efforts that are the basis for the Lees Ferry recommendations

and includes the warm water non‐native surveillance in Lees Ferry.  Funding for project 9.1 as identified in

the triennial work plan is as follows:

FY15:  $180,900

FY16:  $212,700

FY17:  $76,900
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 5

A suggested location to consider drawing funds to support this project could come from the native fish

conservation contingency fund.  This seems appropriate particularly as it relates to the warm water non‐

native surveillance element of this project.  If others on the TAHG want to chime in please do so.     

(WAPA 1) Criteria for Review: New initiatives

Subject: Lees Ferry trout fishery monitoring project

The FY17 budget for Project 9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design does not contain any

funding for Logistics or for Cooperators (non‐USGS). Please specify what monitoring will and will not be

conducted on the Lees Ferry trout fishery in FY17 and whether this will provide uninterrupted coverage in

the long‐term monitoring of the fishery and limit our understanding of how dam operations affect this

fishery.  

Table 1. FY15‐17 budget for Project 9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design.

Salaries Travel

&

Training

Operating

Expenses

Logistics Cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USGS

Cooperators

USGS/SBSC

Burden

Total

FY15 $41,100   $0   $0   $12,900 $115,000   $0   $11,900   $180,900

FY16 $62,300   $2,500   $0   $12,900 $115,000   $0   $20,000   $212,700

FY17 $60,400   $0   $0   $0   $0   $0   $16,500   $76,900

From:  Craig Ellsworth  5/19/16:

(WAPA 2) Criteria for Review: New initiatives

Subject: Natal Origins and associated projects

Please provide an update on the status of the Fish PEP and how this will affect research and monitoring

projects relating to the Natal Origins, Juvenile Chub Monitoring, and the other associated projects identified

in the TWP. How will the conclusion of Natal Origins (Project 9.2) in FY16 affect the projects identified

below (see Table 2)? How will data collection be accomplished for these projects in FY17 since they were

reliant on the Natal Origins project for logistical support? How will the funding obligated for these projects

be utilized in FY17 if no field data is collected? What work is reliant on the recommendations made in the

Fish PEP before proceeding forward? What is planned in FY17 to meet juvenile chub and nonnative fish

monitoring obligations to satisfy the requirements in the BO regarding compliance for the HFE and

nonnative fish control protocols?

Informational excerpts from the TWP:  

Page 316: This research project (Natal Origins; Project 9.2) also provides the logistical framework to

support the fieldwork necessary for a number of other study projects, these include several project

elements in Project 9 “Understanding the Factors Limiting the Recruitment, Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons”, Project Element 7.2., “Mainstem

monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence ‐Juvenile Chub Monitoring” (as

per USDOIa 2011), and Project Element 5.2. “Linking invertebrate drift with fish feeding habits.”

Owing to the extensive tagging effort in this study, other research studies are possible which allow

for greater collaboration between these research studies. Currently the NO project provides the

logistical framework for data collection and some of the analysis as part of the JCM project (see

Project Element 7.2) and other research elements proposed addressing the underlying mechanisms

for trout growth and possible movement (see Project Elements: 5.2.2, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.7, 9.9, and

9.10).

Page 275: As with the Natal Origin Research project, the Juvenile Chub Monitoring project (Project

7.2) is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY2016. This leaves a significant data gap in outlying
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 6

years for information on juvenile humpback chub as required by the Biological Opinion for Glen

Canyon Dam operations including high flow experiments and nonnative fish control (USFWS 2011).

To avoid this gap, a transition of the Juvenile Chub Monitoring project from a research focus to a

monitoring effort needs to occur while maintaining a robust multi‐gear, multi‐pass mark‐recapture

effort necessary to generate reliable survival estimates of these young fish. We propose that GCMRC

and its cooperators collaboratively develop a plan for this transition and include it among the topics

to be reviewed by the fisheries program protocol evaluation panel (PEP; see Project Element 8.3).

The new monitoring project will begin in FY2017 following review and implementation, as

appropriate, of the PEP’s recommendations by GCMRC.

Table 2. FY 17 obligations in the TWP for Natal Origins (Project 9.2) and other projects tied to the Natal

Origins project for logistical support.

5.2.2. Continue Natal Origins drift monitoring in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons   $157,300

5.2.3. Link drift at Natal Origins Project transects to channel bed shear stress   $30,000

7.2. Mainstem monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence ‐

Juvenile Chub Monitoring

$181,900

9.2. Detection of RBT movement from upper Colorado River below GCD (Natal Origins)   $370,300

9.3. Exploring the mechanisms behind trout growth, reproduction, and movement in

Glen and Marble Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves as an indicator of physiological

condition  

$0

9.4. Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish   $92,200

9.7. Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river   $66,000

9.9. Contingency Planning for High Experimental Flows and Subsequent Rainbow Trout

Population Management  

$98,500

9.10. Examining the Effects of High Flow Experiments on the Physiological Condition of

Age‐0 and Adult Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon  

$5,100

Total FY17 obligation $909,100

John

Jordan

Fly

Fishers

5/30/16

Issue One:   HFE Hiatus Study with report and HFE reporting  

There have been three sequential fall HFEs preceding this past fall’s hiatus, which was only due to the green

sun fish problem.  From the 2012 start of sequential fall HFEs there has been a decline bordering a collapse

of the trout fishery.  The cause(s) behind that decline are not clearly understood but appear to have some

relationship with the available aquatic food base.  The opportunity has been presented, which may not soon

again occur to evaluate the impact on the aquatic food base (AFB) of a break in HFEs.  We have some

answers of what happens to the AFB with fall after fall HFEs but we don’t know what changes occur in the

AFB when the river has the opportunity to recovery from repetitive HFEs.  This is an issue that equally

impacts the native and nonnative fisheries.  

The October 24, 2014 Final Recommendation to Implement a Fall 2014 High Flow Experiment at Glen

Canyon Dam, Page 15, Section 6, VI POST HFE‐REPORTING AND FEEDBACK includes:  

“Reclamation committed in the HFE EA and FONSI to provide reports on effects of HFEs conducted in a given

year. If the Leadership Team decides to conduct a fall 2014 HFE, the Technical Team will coordinate to report
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 7

initial findings at the 2015 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) Annual Reporting

Meeting on January 27‐28, 2015 in Phoenix.     

Members of the Technical Team will schedule additional meetings as necessary and will also report ongoing

findings at meetings of the GCDAMP Technical Work Group and Adaptive Management Work Group.

Reclamation also has a commitment to provide an  

annual monitoring report to the FWS Arizona Ecological Services Office (AESO) in compliance with the 2011

Biological Opinion; this report will also include a summary of effects of HFEs conducted under the

protocol........... Reclamation will use the monitoring information and feedback from AESO and the MOA

signatories to inform monitoring for future HFEs, and to design and implement any measures necessary to

address any adverse effects that may occur due to future HFEs.  

There are two similar commitments in the HFE Protocol FONSI that Reclamation will address in 2015 if a

2014 HFE takes place. The first is to undertake a review in 2014 of the first two years of implementation of

the HFE Protocol through a workshop with scientists to assess what has been learned. This commitment is

part of the FWS 2011 Biological Opinion on the HFE Protocol. The second commitment, from the HFE

Protocol FONSI, is to conduct a comprehensive review of the HFE Protocol after multiple events (at least 3)

have occurred, with GCDAMP stakeholders, to document and standardize planning tools and information

sharing approaches as part of the implementation of the HFE Protocol. As a result of consultation with FWS,

Reclamation will combine these two commitments, and, if a fall 2014 HFE occurs, will conduct a workshop in

2015 with GCDAMP stakeholders to evaluate the results of the first three HFEs, and will complete the a

written report of the HFE Protocol findings and biological opinion reporting results in 2015. “  

Additionally the October10, 2012 USFWS Spangle Memo, ....Monitoring Components for November 2012

High Flow Experiment, second last paragraph includes:  

“....We understand that preparing these reports....is a complex process.  However, it is important that the

findings from this monitoring be available to us prior to any subsequent fall HFE events taking place....”

The request is for a FY 17 Work Plan amendment to provide a timely report to the TWG to be followed by a

written report, utilizing existing research product, comparing the AFB in the years following multiple

sequential fall HFEs and the year(s) after a fall without an HFE and including, to the extent possible, the

causative elements for substantive differences.   Additionally the request is that the first three year

comprehensive review for stakeholder evaluation, as committed to in the October 24, 2014 Final

Recommendation, be provided. And, that the review include a comparative analysis of the pre sequential

HFE food base and the post sequential food base and the resultant impact of substantive differences on the

fishery.

Jordan: HFE workshop Feb. last year (Feb 2015, added an extra day for the workshop), no mention in

agenda and minutes, but this was clarified later that it was captured and was an added day after the AMWG

meeting. Number of ppts in heading of the workshop. Ted Kennedy gave a ppt on foodbase, this could

possibly be updated in response. Scott: a report could be developed, from TK and his group, but also from

Yard and Korman related to the natal origins study with a lot of useful information, including bioenergetics.

No modification to the workplan is necessary, they will plan to put this report together as part of the 2017

workplan but completion would not be expected until the end of the fiscal year. The TWG will be expecting

some level of presentation on these topics at the January annual reporting meeting in preparation to the

development of the 2018‐20 workplan.

Issue Two:   Temperature Driven Fishery Concerns

Temperatures are a primary driver for the well‐being and health of native and non‐native fish

communities in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyon, yet currently there is no capability to affect release

temperatures from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD). The recently completed USBR Water Supply and Demand
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 8

Study for the Colorado River Basin suggests that Lake Powell elevations will likely decrease in the future

as a result of increased water demands, drought, and climate change. Lower Lake Powell elevations will

lead to warmer water release from GCD, which could lead to invasions of warm water fishes and other

invasive species into the Marble and Grand canyons. There is clear evidence from the upper Colorado

River basin that such an invasion would have a devastating impact on humpback chub and other native

fishes in the Colorado River below GCD (Tyus and Saunders 2000).

The request is  for a FY 17 Work Plan amendment to provide:   (1)  The resumption by August 2016 of Real

Time Lake Powell Temperature Profile Data Feed to GCMRC and AZGFD which might present early warning

of GCD outflow temperatures of concern for the native and cold water nonnative  fisheries below GCD. (2)

An estimate/appraisal of the capability/capacity of using By Pass Tube releases to effect sufficient reduction

of GCD release temperatures to preserve the rain bow trout fishery in the Lees Ferry reach from

temperature caused mortality including By Pass Tube(s) release rates and durations (volume) that would be

required and also including an appraisal of the impacts of this action on other resources. (3) An estimate of

the capability/capacity of By Pass Tube releases to alleviate/avoid reductions in dissolved oxygen, which

might impact the rainbow trout fishery in the upper Lees Ferry reach.

Joe Miller spoke to the issue, and Scott mentioned that BOR is taking on the monitoring program

themselves. GCMRC continues forebay monitoring quarterly. In the dam, and downstream, there continues

to be monitoring devices and those are still in place. Typically the data has been provided to Bill V., we have

access to that data, but need to move staff around to do that work. No long term solution is in place at this

point. Real time info also with the Lees Ferry gage. Randy: key points needed for DO and temperature

issues, at what point do impacts start to occur with trout (DO & temp)? When should emergency

notifications happen? Scott: elements of this request are largely engineering issues. We understand water

quality impacts, but how to operate the dam, that is largely a BOR question. Rough zone running of the

generators is problematic for DO augmentation as occurred in the past. Scott: look at the gage at Lees Ferry,

you can see the effects of HFEs (bypass tube use) on temperature and DO. Reclamation will consider this

issue when Katrina returns and get back to the TWG/BAHG at the TWG meeting. Randy mentioned the

issues and concerns with use of the bypass tubes for non‐experimental or emergency concerns. We’re

looking to BOR for guidance on what activities are possible to consider and explore for DO and temp

actions.

Craig

Ellsworth  

(WAPA)

5/19/16:

(WAPA 4) Criteria for Review: Scientific requirement or merit

Subject: Non Market Value Study for Water and Power

The Center for Energy, Security and Society (CESS) at the University of Oklahoma is a collaboration with the

Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratory. WAPA has been researching the non‐market value of

hydropower and working with scientists at this center. Independently, the center is expert in assessing

attitudes and opinions. WAPA suggests a collaborative effort between CESS and GCMRC as part of Project

13.2 Tribal Values and Perspectives of Resources Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam.  

An economic trade off model that supports better GCDAMP may be informed by an approach recently

taken by Dr. David Brookshire for water and resource decision making in the United States. For Project 13.3.

Applied Decision Methods for the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Plan, WAPA suggests the addition of

a “Brookshire‐type” model developed and calibrated for the GCDAMP by Dr. Brookshire working with the

other scientists specified for this project.   

Clayton: 13.2, modest change to incorporate information from other approaches that have been utilized.

13.3 involves potentially modifying models and changing models being used. Clayton has talked to Lucas

and he is open to discussions. SEAHG also discussed this, and talked more about 13.3 but applies to 13.2

and the SEAHG was supportive of these interactions. SEAHG should follow up on this, and work with Lucas

to change the work, some of the modeling done could create some savings potentially. Mike Yeatts, asked

that if major changes to 13.2 it will need to be approved by the tribes, but Clayton and Leslie agreed the

proposal is for minor changes to the project, but the point is still valid and changes will be coordinated, if

they occur. Randy, thinks that these projects may be going beyond the authority of the GCPA, and we talked

about an agenda item to cover these in vs. out topics at the October TWG meeting.  
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 9

Leslie

James,

6/3/16

Scott, I wanted to write in to clarify what I was inartfully asking about on the BAHG call.   I understand there

are several elements of the project 4, not just the Aeolian work.  I think it would be helpful for the next

BAHG call for us to understand how much and what type of work is remaining on this element for FY17 and

how much funding is required for that to be completed;  is there any funding available from what is

currently allocated vs. what may be needed?    Lastly, what are the ramifications if some or all of the FY17

tasks under this element at not completed?  

Thanks, Leslie

Response was provided by GCMRC in a separate document from Scott Vanderkooi. The BAHG appreciates

the work that GCMRC staff put into the thoughtful response.

Shane

Capron

4/21/17: TWG/BAHG:

We are following up on our budget process items from our April TWG meeting. This is to reach a TWG

budget recommendation at our June TWG meeting in Salt Lake City. In another email next week we will

provide a revised budget process paper for your review and comment. Please provide input to the doodle

poll for a BAHG meeting, send in budget issues (if you have any), and be prepared to discuss the FY 2017

budget in June.

Initial budget issues due: May 18. Please provide to Linda Whetton and Shane Capron (BAHG Chair) your

initial budget items for the FY 2017 budget and work plan that you would like to discuss at the BAHG. Please

review the “criteria for review” below and identify which of the following categories your request falls into,

and a short rationale for why you think your request has merit.

BAHG meeting: week of May 31‐Jun 3, 3 hour call. Linda will include a doodle poll, please provide your

input to that poll by April 29. We will review results and send out call in information. Anyone is welcome to

join the BAHG discussions.

CRAHG: per the TWG request, please review the FY 2017 budget and work plan and provide your input to

the BAHG.

TAHG: per the TWG request, please review the FY 2017 budget and work plan and provide your input to the

BAHG based on your revised charge from the April TWG meeting.

TWG meeting: June 14‐15. Consider BAHG budget recommendation and make a recommendation to

AMWG on the FY 2017 budget and work plan.

From our budget protocol guidance:

2.7  Criteria for Review and Revisions of the Year‐three Budget and Work Plan

In order for the TWP process to be successful in reducing the administrative burden on the GCMRC,

Reclamation, and the GCDAMP, it must have clear criteria for making changes to the year‐three budget. The

burden of an appropriate rationale for proposing a change falls upon the proposer to make a persuasive

argument. The following criteria will be used by GCMRC, Reclamation, and TWG in making

recommendations to AMWG on changes to the year‐three budget and work plan:

 Scientific requirement or merit: New information gained during the implementation of

monitoring and research projects may result in a need to alter methods, scope, or timelines in

the work plan or substantially alter or eliminate a project. This is a science need based on the

experience of implementing an already approved project. This does not represent a shifting
BAHG Notes June 8, 2016     Page 10

priority, but a scientific learning process which results in needed modifications to carry out the

goals of the Program.

 Administrative needs: Administrative or programmatic changes may occur within the time‐frame

of an approved TWP. Examples might include the mitigation of an impact resulting from ESA or

tribal consultation, a change in the “overhead” charges of a federal or state agency, a significant

reduction of the balance of the Colorado River Basin Fund, or a failure to secure NPS permits for

work in the Grand Canyon. As soon as an administrative event occurs that affects the TWP,

GCMRC (or relevant agency – such as DOI) will notify the TWG.

 New initiatives: New initiatives or modifications to projects that may or may not be based on a

scientific merit must be vetted through DOI. DOI will consider whether to direct GCMRC/BOR to

work on these new initiatives or whether to consider them during the next full budget cycle.

Given that the budget will likely be fully accounted for, direction on where to locate the funds

within the current budget will be requested from DOI.
Response on Project 4 from GCMRC

Table 1. The FY17 Project 4 budget will pay for the following 

*Subtotals rounded to the $1000

Budget Justification (note that this is written by Joel Sankey and Helen Fairley in response to the Budget 

Comments from Randy Seaholm1, Kurt Dongoske2, and Craig Ellsworth3) 

The current Project 4 and its predecessors from the past decade, (please see recent USGS Professional 

Paper https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1825, and Project 4 bibliography in the FY15-17 workplan) 

have demonstrated that portions of the landscape above the stage of contemporary high flows (e.g., 

>45,000 CFS) are affected by geomorphic processes occurring in the active river channel as well as by 

geomorphic processes that link the active channel with higher elevation areas. Some locations along the 

river valley margins that have high connectivity to the active river channel include aeolian dune fields 

and archaeological sites. These areas are affected either directly or indirectly by the fluvial geomorphic 

processes of the Colorado River and therefore are directly or indirectly affected by operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam. We realize that this is a potentially controversial topic for some stakeholders because it 

highlights ways in which management actions that affect the active river channel also affect the 

environment outside of the active river channel. 

Because of this work, the staff of Project 4 were commended during FY15 and FY16 by DOI, including the 

office of the ASWS, BOR, and NPS, for providing timely and relevant scientific information in support of 

their discussions about the Area of Potential Effect from Operations of Glen Canyon Dam. This past 

work, and ongoing work in Project 4, also address questions previously raised by the Hopi Tribe as to 

whether and in what respects erosion of their ancestral sites is being aggravated by effects from dam 

operations. If Project 4 were to be cut from the budget in 2017, USGS would no longer be able to meet 

the needs of many stakeholders nor provide timely and relevant science in support of important 

ongoing discussions that are relevant to all stakeholders. It would be particularly rash and untimely to 

cut this project in the last year of the Triennial Workplan (2017) considering that many issues 

surrounding the APE have yet to be decided, and refinements of previous decisions about which areas of 

the landscape outside of the active river channel to include in the APE are still under discussion. 

Project 4 evaluates the roles of proposed flow and nonflow management actions for enhancing 

connectivity of sediment between the active river channel and valley margins. It seeks to more fully 

Personnel Sub Total pre-burden* Total pre-burden

 Joel Sankey (50 % of annual salary)

 Helen Fairley (50 % of annual salary)

 Amy East (27 % of annual salary)

 Joshua Caster (100 % of annual salary)

 Alan Kasprak (73 % of annual salary)

 Keith Kohl (8 % of annual salary)

$376,000 (total personnel)

Publishing $8,000

Travel for Sankey, Fairley, East, Caster, Kasprak $14,000

Logistics (1 river trip) $30,000

Supplies, Software & Equipment Maintenance $26,000

$454,000
understand how vegetation growth in the New High Water Zone has affected sand availability and 

deposition and erosion patterns at cultural sites. In FY17, work will specifically examine the potential 

role of experimental flows in addition to and including floods (HFEs) for enhancing connectivity and will 

evaluate the potential role of vegetation removal for enhancing future connectivity between the current 

active channel and the former active channel of the Colorado River, where many significant cultural sites 

are located. Deliverables planned from this work are manuscripts that will be published in high impact 

peer-reviewed journals. Craig Ellsworth3 questioned the need for this work in FY17 in light of the 

publication by Collins et al. (2015) in the journal Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. In referencing 

one sentence from the conclusions (“aeolian deposition, even with anthropogenic forcing via fluvial 

sand‐bar building high flow dam releases, was found to be generally insufficient to offset the effects of 

precipitation‐induced gullying.”), two other important conclusions of the work are not acknowledged. 

These conclusions are: 1. “ample evidence for aeolian deposition” exists “when coupled with upwind 

fluvial sand supplies”, and 2. “fluvially-connected aeolian deposition is a time-dependent process, the 

outer limit of which may extend for many years”. Our goals in FY17 are important and relevant because 

we aim to extend the work of Collins et al. (2015) in order to quantify whether experimental flows such 

as consecutive (e.g., annual) HFEs, as well as nonflow actions like vegetation removal at sites with high 

potential connectivity, are viable strategies for maintaining or restoring the trajectory of long term sand 

retention in the system. Importantly, our work will extend the length of our datasets to allow us to 

examine the effects of the current and ongoing HFE protocol in an adequate timeframe. 

Concurrently with work described above, Project 4 is developing a monitoring plan to evaluate the 

efficacy of future operations in achieving the protection and improvement goals for cultural resources 

specified in GCPA. Development of this plan has proceeded with consultation and review from 

stakeholders, including DOI agencies, WAPA, CREDA and the tribes. The Project 4 monitoring protocols 

are designed to track how future flow (i.e., dam operations) and non-flow management actions (e.g., 

riparian vegetation removal) affect the condition of archaeological sites located in the river corridor 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. GCMRC intentionally designed this program to focus on effects of 

geomorphic processes that are influenced by dam operations or other non-flow actions which may be 

implemented during the next 20 years as part of LTEMP, with a specific focus on documenting whether 

and how they affect the physical condition of archaeological sites. The National Park Service at Grand 

Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the Hopi, Hualapai, Navajo, Kaibab 

Southern Paiute, and Zuni tribes also have programs to monitor cultural resource sites and related 

resources of interest. Some of these monitoring programs assess visitor impacts that can change the 

National Register eligibility of historic properties, or they focus on monitoring intangible values 

associated with Native American Traditional Cultural Properties, which differs from the GCMRC focus on 

quantifying effects of geomorphic processes on the physical condition of (primarily) register-eligible 

archaeological sites. Ultimately, the assessment of effects to the National Register significance of 

historic properties is a value-based judgment call that is not appropriate for USGS scientists to make. 

However, the information on physical condition and the processes creating those conditions that is 

being produced by GCMRC through the Project 4 monitoring program will directly inform management 

decisions made by other DOI managers about whether and to what degree and in what respects dam 

operations affect the integrity of National Register eligible properties. The intention of GCMRC is to not 

duplicate other ongoing monitoring efforts but to complement them, and where possible, enhance the 

scientific foundation upon which future management decisions will be made. 

The GCMRC is cognizant that aspects of their monitoring will have significant and differing relevance to 

resource managers and stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. For 

example, some aspects of GCMRC's monitoring program will be relevant to National Historic 
Preservation Act requirements implemented under a new Programmatic Agreement, for which the 

Bureau of Reclamation has lead responsibility. The monitoring undertaken by GCMRC will be useful for 

evaluating whether and how dam-controlled flows implemented under the LTEMP affect the condition 

of National Register eligible historic properties in lower Glen and Grand Canyons. As such, the Bureau of 

Reclamation and other signatories to the PA may wish to highlight within the PA the specific reasons 

why monitoring is being done and the specific monitoring questions and data interpretations within 

GCMRC’s monitoring plan that are relevant to their stated requirements. Beyond the PA, the 

monitoring program we are implementing is directly responsive to the monitoring information 

requirements specified in GCPA, i.e., for evaluating how well the AMP is meeting the requirements of 

the Grand Canyon Protection Act related to protecting and improving the condition of archaeological 

sites and other cultural resources such as landscape-scale TCPs. 

In FY15, GCMRC distributed drafts of the monitoring plan and consulted with DOI agencies and all other 

stakeholders during multiple meetings (please see the timeline below). FY16 was the first year of 

implementing the new plan. Monitoring activities planned for FY17 include one river trip to collect 

additional monitoring data, and the dissemination of a monitoring report to stakeholders documenting 

the results of the monitoring in 2016 and 2017 (i.e., under the current Triennial Workplan). To properly 

evaluate this new monitoring program requires more than two years of data collection, particularly if we 

want to understand meaningful trends in resource condition. Nonetheless, stakeholders will have an 

opportunity to help determine the fate of GCMRC's monitoring program when the next workplan is 

developed. 

Finally, please note that GCMRC staff continues to be receptive to constructive comments from 

stakeholders to improve the value and utility of our monitoring program. If any stakeholder believes 

that important sites or attributes have been overlooked and should be included in the monitoring plan, 

GCMRC would be happy to discuss all recommendations and have frank and constructive conversations 

about how to refine GCMRC’s monitoring program to further improve its scientific credibility and utility 

to decision makers, managers and stakeholders. 

Monitoring plan consultation and review timeline: 

 June 23rd 2015. Met with Grand Canyon NPS and BOR to discuss monitoring plan. (Mary Barger,

Jan Balsom, Helen Fairley, and Joel Sankey participated). NPS and BOR recommended that we

draft a very short outline of our proposed monitoring plan and then meet with BOR and NPS

staff again to review.

 July 6th 2015. Emailed plan outline and site list to BOR and NPS stakeholders and organized a

meeting for review and discussion. (email with outline was sent to Mary Barger, Janet Balsom,

Rob Billerbeck, Glen Knowles, Rosemary Sucec, Nathaniel Baker, Jennifer Dierker, Ellen Brennan,

Bill Chada, Helen Fairley, Scott VanderKooi, Joshua Caster, Amy East)

 July 16th 2015. Met with NPS and BOR to discuss and review their comments on the outline.

(Mary Barger, Bevereley Heffernan, Jan Balsom, Jen Dierker, Ellen Brennan, Jane Rodgers, Joel

Sankey, Helen Fairley, and Joshua Caster participated). Recommended next step was to organize

a meeting to include all other stakeholders in the discussion and review process.

 August 21st 2015. Held a meeting with webinar to review the monitoring plan outline. The

following were invited (Helen Fairley, Joshua Caster, Bill Chada, Beverley Heffernan, Ellen

Brennan, Janet Balsom, Charley Bullets, Ora V. Marek-Martinez, Sarah Rinkevich, Peter Bungart,

Leslie James, Mike Yeatts, Kurt Dongoske, Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Jennifer Dierker, Jane Rodgers,

Mary Barger, Glen Knowles, Scott Vanderkooi, Dave Lytle, Rob Billerbeck, Charles Lewis,
Rosemary Sucec, Nathaniel Baker, Kirk Young, Ann Howard, Mary-Ellen Walsh, John Eddins, Reid 

Nelson, Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Rick Wessel. 

 October 7th 2015. Emailed a complete draft of the monitoring plan to all stakeholders. Based on

the follow-up email recommendation of stakeholders, scheduled a webinar to discuss the

monitoring plan in conjunction with DOI presentation of their progress on PA and APE work.

Plan was emailed to the following: Bill Chada, Beverley Heffernan, Ellen Brennan, Janet Balsom,

Charley Bullets, Ora V. Marek-Martinez, Sarah Rinkevich, Peter Bungart, Leslie James, Mike,Kurt

Dongoske, Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Jennifer Dierker, Jane Rodgers, Mary Barger, Glen Knowles,Rob

Billerbeck, Charles Lewis, Rosemary Sucec, Nathaniel Baker, Kirk Young, Ann Howard, Mary-Ellen

Walsh, John Eddins, Reid Nelson, Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Rick Wessel, Lisa Meyer, Helen Fairley,

Joshua Caster, Amy East, Scott Vanderkooi, David Lytle

 November 30th 2015. DOI LTEMP Meeting “NHPA APE cultural site development” via phone and

webinar. We presented our monitoring plan in conjunction with the DOI and BOR presentation

of their progress on PA and APE work

 December 3rd 2015. Participated in the DOI “Meeting with Tribes and Arizona SHPO and ACHP”

to entertain follow-up questions to our presentation of the monitoring plan

 To date we have received and incorporated written comments from the following for the

document we sent out on October 7th, 2015: NPS-Grand Canyon, NPS-Glen Canyon, WAPA,

Zuni.

Budget comments provided by Randy Seaholm, Kurt Dongoske, and Craig Ellsworth are repeated 

below: 

1Budget comment from From Randy Seaholm (5/20/16): 

Attached is a spreadsheet containing changes we would like to see made to the FY 17 budget and 

related documents. We have not suggested specific dollar amounts to allow some latitude in 

reallocating funds once our comments have been addressed. Briefly our proposed changes and 

reasoning are as follows. 1. A project first and foremost must fit within the laws that govern the 

allocation, appropriation, development and exportation of the waters of the Colorado River Basin. No 

project should be included that seeks to alter or misinterpret any of those laws. There is a New Project, 

T6 in Appendix 4 of the FY 2015‐17 Budget document dealing with equalization that has been suggested 

but not funded. We believe this proposed project is clearly outside this criterion and should be 

completely removed from the documents. 2. Any project should be confined to the Colorado River 

Ecosystem and specifically to understanding how dam operations could be modified to benefit both 

power and downstream resources. Since the maximum release from the dam for purposes of the 

GCAMP is 45,000 cfs, projects should be focused on resources at or below this flow level. Projects above 

this flow level should be funded from sources other than GCAMP funds. We would further suggest that 

studies that go outside the CRE into other river basins or involve work above Lake Powell or below Lake 

Mead not be considered and if so, absolutely done with funds other than GCAMP. This would be 

consistent with funding guidance provided early on in the program but which has since become lost or 

blurred over time. 3. Projects should not overlap or consider work that cannot reasonably benefit 

resources within the CRE in GCNP or GCNRA. Towards this end the aeolian sand studies in our 

estimation, while they may be interesting, are not going to provide a useful tool or information that will 

benefit the GCAMP. Wind does what wind will do. Furthermore, a lot of the sand conservation work, 

plus the current vegetative monitoring program, which includes identifying the impacts of HFE’s on 

vegetation, make aeolian sand studies unnecessary. If aeolian sand studies continue outside funding 
should be obtained, GCAMP funds should not be used. The GCAMP funds freed up could help advance 

some of the fishery projects that Arizona Game and Fish mentioned as underfunded. 

2Budget comment from Kurt Dongoske (5/17/2016) 

Reclamation’s funding of Project 4 (D.2.3) ‐ This project examines deposition of aeolian sand from HFE‐

created sand bars on historic properties within the area of potential effect of future dam operations. 

The primary objectives of element 4.2. are to draft and implement a monitoring plan that meets 

requirements for monitoring effects of dam operations to cultural resources relative to the National 

Historic Preservation Act and Grand Canyon Protection Act. Given that Reclamation is currently in the 

process of drafting a new Programmatic Agreement (PA) should this project continue to be funded if it 

ultimately does not meet the needs of compliance as defined in a new PA. The CRAHG believes that 

GCMRC’s role in complying with any of the stipulations that will come out of the new PA needs to be 

determined soon because any monitoring of cultural resources under the NHPA or the GCPA will be 

funded through this program. The continuation of developing a monitoring program that does not 

include assessing historic property integrity is a serious concern for the CRAHG. The question of 

continuing to fund a monitoring program that in the end does not meet the compliance needs of 

Reclamation should be a serious issue for the BAHG. According to the work plan, the draft monitoring 

plan will make a recommendation of the sample of archaeological sites that should be monitored, but 

stakeholders (presumably including the BOR, NPS, SHPO, ACHP and tribes) will need to work very closely 

with GCMRC in year 1 of the project to come to agreement on the monitoring protocol and set of sites 

that is ultimately monitored. CRAHG would like to know from GCMRC if the stakeholders have been 

meaningfully consulted on the selection of sites to be monitored? 

3Budget comment from Craig Ellsworth (5/20/2016) 

Please identify the need to continue Project 4.1. Quantifying connectivity along the fluvial‐aeolian‐

hillslope continuum at landscape scales in FY17. The TWP identifies the primary objective of this project 

is to explain how connectivity along the fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope continuum varies spatially throughout 

the river corridor and to determine if this connectivity has changed during the recent decades of 

restricted power plant operation and the occurrence of controlled floods. A recent paper published by 

Collins et al. 2015 in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms concludes that “aeolian deposition, even 

with anthropogenic forcing via fluvial sand‐bar building high flow dam releases, was found to be 

generally insufficient to offset the effects of precipitation‐induced gullying.” Please identify the need of 

spending $252,600 in FY17 to continue studying aeolian deposition resulting from the 2012 HFE Protocol 

when the latest findings regarding this project indicate that this mechanism does not occur with the 

frequency or magnitude to offset precipitation‐induced erosion of archeological sites below Glen 

Canyon Dam. 
Reclamation ‐ Adaptive Management Program Budget Summary 6/8/2016 13:02

includes labor and contract data through end of May 2016

Category

2016 TWP

(FY15 3.0%, FY16

3.0%)

2016 TWP

(FY15 1.7.0%, FY16

0.0%)

FY 16 Funding

Assigned FY16 Commitments

Delta between 2016

TWP and Assigned

A Adaptive Management Work Group $           391,370 $            375,185 $            316,677 $               274,152 $              58,508

A.1 Adaptive Management Work Group Costs (only ERD) Labor $           202,425 $            194,054 $             194,054 $               151,425 $ 0

A.2 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement Other $              16,159 $               15,491 $               15,491

A.3 AMWG Reclamation Travel Other $              16,580 $               15,894 $               15,984 $ (90)

A.4 AMWG Facilitation Contract Contact $              81,943 $               78,554 $               82,215 $ 82,215 $               (3,661)

A.5 Public Outreach Labor 64,945 $              $               62,259 $ ‐ $               62,259

A.6 AMWG Other Misc $               9,318 $                 8,933 $                 8,933 $ 14,058 $ (0)

B Technical Working Group $           176,597 $            169,294 $               41,017 $                 47,775 $            128,277

B.1 TWG Costs Labor 100,799 $           $               96,630 $               96,630 $ 31,804 $ (0)

B.2 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement Other 23,743 $              $               22,761 $               22,761

B.3 TWG Reclamation Travel Other 16,381 $              $               15,704 $               15,704

B.4 TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation Contract 33,012 $              $               31,647 $ ‐ $ ‐ $               31,647

B.5 TWG Other Other $               2,662 $                 2,552 $                 2,552 $ 0

C Reclamation Administration $           816,939 $            783,155 $            336,661 $                 47,775 $            446,494

C.1 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting Contract $           140,046 $            134,254 $             140,046 $               140,046 $               (5,792)

C.2 Contract Administration Labor $              46,723 $               44,791 $               44,791 $ 2,109 $ (0)

C.3 Science Advisor Contract Contract $              77,250 $               74,055 $             151,824 $               112,622 $             (77,769)

C.4 Experimental Fund Contract $           552,920 $            530,054 $ ‐ $               530,054 $            530,054

C.5 Installation of Acoustic Flow Meters Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

C.6 Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund (No funding identified in TWP for FY16) Contract 1,110,89 $        4 $         1,064,953 $ ‐ $ ‐ $         1,064,953

C.6.6.2 Aggregation recruitment Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

C.6.6.3 Monitoring mainstem aggregations with PIT tag antennas (pilot) Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

C.6.6.6 Direct mainstem augmentation of humpback chub Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

C.6.7.3 July LCR juvenile HC marking to estimate production and outmigration Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

C.6.7.6 Potential for gravel substrate limitation for HC reproduction in the LCR Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

C.6.7.7 Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor early life history stages of HC in the LCR Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

C.6.7.9 Dev of a non‐lethal tool to assess physiological condition of HC in the CR/LCR Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

D Cultural Resources $        1,296,401 $         1,242,789 $         1,592,931 $               576,915 $           (350,143)

D.1 Cultural Resources Program Management Labor 139,307 $           $            133,546 $             133,546 $ 61,464 $ (0)

D.2 Cultural Resources Work Plan Contract 515,00 $           0 $            493,702 $             456,004 $               391,004 $               37,698

D.2.1 Long‐term Monitoring Program for Terrestrial and Submerged CR Contract $           145,000 $            139,004 $             139,004 $               139,004 $ (0)

D.2.2 Zuni Associative Values Contract 30,000 $              $               28,759 $               65,000 $ ‐ $             (36,241)

D.2.3 Support for GCMRC’s Project 4 Contract 150,00 $           0 $            143,797 $             157,000 $               157,000 $             (13,203)

D.2.4 TEK Ecological Restoration Project Contract 100,00 $           0 $               95,865 $               95,000 $ 95,000 $ 865

D.2.5 Tribal Synthesis Contract 50,000 $              $               47,932 $ ‐ $ ‐ $               47,932

D.2.6 Annual Integrated River Trip: An Exchange of Values and World‐Views Contract 30,000 $              $               28,759 $ ‐ $ ‐ $               28,759

D.2.7 Nonnative Fish Removal Consultation Contract 10,000 $              $                 9,586 $ ‐ $ ‐ $                 9,586

D.2.8 Tribal Preparation of Paperwork for DOE of Grand Canyon to NR Contract $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

D.3 Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring Contract 167,09 $           4 $            160,184 $             124,447 $               124,447 $               35,737

D.4 Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP (5 tribes at $95,000) ‐appropriated funds Grant 475,00 $           0 $            475,000 $             422,930 $ ‐ $               52,070

$ ‐

Total Without USGS (Reclamation Only) $     2,681,307 $      2,570,422 $       2,287,286 $            946,616 $         283,136

U USGS ‐ GCMRC $     10,928,700 $       10,476,746 $         9,029,760 $            9,029,760 $         1,446,986

U1 Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water‐Quality Monitoring $           310,500 $            297,659

U2 Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem $        1,452,000 $         1,391,953

U3 Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long‐term Monitoring and Research at the

Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales $        1,425,900 $         1,366,932

U4

Connectivity along the fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope continuum: quantifying the relative

importance of river related factors that influence upland geomorphology and

archaeological site stability $           562,900 $             539,621

U5 Foodbase Monitoring and Research $           631,900 $            605,768

U6 Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub Aggregations and Fish Community Dynamics $           708,600 $             679,296

U7 Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and around the Little Colorado River $        1,708,600 $         1,637,941

U8 Experimental Actions to Increase Abundance and Distribution of Native Fishes in Grand

Canyon $           226,500 $             217,133

U9 Understanding the Factors Determining Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and

Movement of Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons $        1,102,100 $         1,056,523

U10 Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater fishery end? ‐ Integrating

Fish and Channel Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam $           152,100 $             145,810

U11 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis of Riparian Vegetation, Landform Change

and Aquatic‐ Terrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities $           551,700 $             528,885

U12

Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Culturally‐Important Plants in the

Colorado River Ecosystem: A Pilot Study to Explore Relationships between Vegetation

Change and Traditional Cultural Values $              86,400 $               82,827

U13 Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research $           356,900 $            342,140

U14 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Services and Support $           219,900 $            210,806

U15 Administration $        1,432,700 $         1,373,451

Total With USGS $   13,610,007 $    13,047,168 $    11,317,046 $         9,976,376 $      1,730,122

DRAFT  ‐ SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL UPDATES