Budget Ad Hoc Report to TWG 

April 3, 2007 

Submitted by: Dennis Kubly, Chair 

Members: Bill Persons, Kerry Christensen, Mary Barger, Glen Knowles, Larry Stevens, Norm 

Henderson, Mike Yeatts, Ken McMullen, Don Ostler, Rick Johnson, Steven Begay (Leslie James 

also has been attending with the retirement of Lloyd Greiner). GCMRC representatives: John 

Hamill, Ted Melis, Matthew Andersen, and Helen Fairley. Kurt Dongoske participated in the 

role of TWG Chair. 

The Budget Ad Hoc Group has conversed three times (March 1, 14, and 20) by conference call 

in preparing for this TWG meeting. Our objectives were as follows: 

(1) Develop a recommendation to the TWG for the allocation of FY 06 surplus funds 

(2) Develop a recommendation to the TWG on general priorities and direction for the FY 08 

budget and work plan 

(1) There were $236,000 in surplus funds from FY 06. Of that amount, $47,000 has been 

committed, leaving $189,000 for BAHG deliberations. The following recommendations were 

submitted for carryover funding. 

GCMRC Recommendations 

FY 06 Surplus Fund 

(All costs include appropriate USGS burden) 

(Recommended projects are not prioritized) 

Projects already funded

• Staff support for the Sediment Core Monitoring Evaluation Proposal ($23K). The 

long term sediment storage monitoring project is scheduled to be evaluated for core 

monitoring status by the TWG in April/May 2007. The TWG’s evaluation will be based 

on a report prepared by GCMRC that includes the following information: 

a. Geographic scope of the monitoring effort 

b. Justification for the monitoring effort 

c. Project goal, tasks, and schedule 

d. Key science questions and manager information needs to be addressed 

e. Monitoring protocol, including sampling design, level of data resolution, accuracy 

and precision assessments 

f. Expected outcomes including reports, guidelines, models, etc 

g. Cost by fiscal year 

Funds would be used to pay for additional staff support from Scott Wright and Dave 

Topping to prepare the Sediment Core Monitoring Evaluation Report by April 2007. 

Based on their knowledge and prior involvement, Scott and Dave provide the only viable 

option to complete the report within the established time frame. Insufficient funds were 

included in the FY 07 budget to cover this activity because the cost of Scott Wright’s 

time was unknown when the FY 07 budget was prepared. (Scott transferred to a new job 

with California District of USGS on Oct 1, 2006). The proposal also includes two pay 

- 1 -
BAHG Report to TWG for April 2-3, 2007 Meeting 

FY 08 Draft Budget and Workplan Development 

periods of Dave Topping’s time—only 75% of Dave’s time is currently covered by in the 

FY 07 budget and this activity was not included in his FY 07 work plan. 

• GCMRC technical writer/editor support ($24K). In FY 06, GCMRC entered into an 

agreement with Northern Arizona University to provide a technical writer/editor to assist 

with preparation of several large documents including the SSP, MRP, Experimental 

Options Assessment, and Knowledge Assessment Report. These service greatly 

enhanced GCMRC’s capability to produce quality documents in a short time frames. 

Funds would be used by GCMRC in FY 07 to continue to utilize the service of a 

technical writer/editor to assist in the completion of the BHBF science plan, several core 

monitoring evaluation reports, review and publication of technical reports in compliance 

with the USGS fundamental science practices, and to support GCMRC participation in 

the EIS process. 

GCMRC identified the following recommendation for expenditure of the remaining funds. 

Proposals for the Remaining $189K

(1) Core Monitoring Information Needs Workshop Facilitator ($6K): In the March 

2007 GCMRC plans to conduct a workshop for TWG members to refined and formulate 

recommendations concerning specific management goals, information needs, and the 

scope of monitoring projects that will be evaluated for core monitoring status in FY 07, 

including: 

b. Downstream surface water (e.g., discharge) and selected water quality parameters 

related to sediment 

c. Sand Storage monitoring 

d. Terrestrial ecosystem monitoring 

e. Status of Lee’s Ferry rainbow trout 

Funds would be used to hire a facilitator to plan, facilitate and write up workshop results. 

GCMRC believes using a facilitator will lead to a more efficient work shop and increase 

the likelihood of achieving workshop objectives 

(2) Fully fund the Lees Ferry trout study ($63K). Josh Korman of Ecometric, Inc., was 

asked to submit a FY 07 proposal for additional studies of the early life stages of rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River in fiscal 2007. Korman complied, 

presenting a proposal totaling about $108,000. This level of funding was not available, 

so Korman was asked to reduce the level of effort in his proposal to come under the 

$49,000 that the Technical Workgroup had made available. Korman revised his 

proposal, emphasizing data analysis and reporting with a small amount of field work. 

Additional funding is being sought to increase the number of site visits and to allow for 

interaction with physical modelers so that broader generalizations regarding habitat 

selection and use by rainbow trout can be made. Additional field work would provide 

important, additional data points and thereby increase the value of the analysis, especially 

its predictive power. 

- 2 -
BAHG Report to TWG for April 2-3, 2007 Meeting 

FY 08 Draft Budget and Workplan Development 

(3) Purchase Additional Sonic Tags ($20K). Making additional sonic tags available to the 

researchers in the field in FY 07 will increase the probability that tagged fish will be 

located and tracked, thereby increasing the amount of information that can be obtained 

from this project. In FY 07 the sonic tag project will be focused on downstream areas, 

below Diamond Creek, and warm water nonnative fish species. Increasing the likelihood 

of tracking these tagged, nonnative fish adds to our ability to assess the risk these species 

pose to the native fishes of Grand Canyon. 

(4) Experimental Fund/EIS Contingency Fund ($100K). GCMRC believes it is prudent 

to retain the option to utilize these funds to support GCMRC participation in the EIS on 

the Long Term Experimental Plan to the extent that funding currently available is 

insufficient to support GCMRC participation. (GCMRC expects the EIS support 

requirements will be better defined in early 2007). GCMRC recommends the balance of 

funds be deposited in the experimental fund and used to support implementation of the 

LTEP or other experimental research project approved by the DOI. 

Several other possible projects were discussed in the first conference call. BAHG members who 

desired to submit a description and funding level for different projects were invited to do so. 

Western Area Power Administration responded with the following proposal. 

(5) Western Area Power Administration FY 06 Carryover Funding Request ($75K). 

Western proposes that FY 2006 carryover funds be used to fund a number of short-term 

experiments below Glen Canyon Dam in 2007. These short-term experiments will provide 

information needed for the Long-Term Experimental Program EIS and will address questions on 

the effects of fluctuations on the aquatic food base. Short-term experiments would focus on the 

following preliminary set of questions: 

(1) What is the effect of varying ramp rates on invertebrate drift and standing crop? 

(2) What is the effect on drift of short-term fluctuation spikes that would preserve steady flows at 

the confluence with the Little Colorado River? 

(3) What is the effect of short-term flow reductions on drift rates? 

(4) Does the rate of drift change over a period of fluctuations? 

Short-term experiments would be conducted using existing ROD flows when possible, but would 

request short-term (several days or a few weeks), specific flow regimes to address the needs of 

the studies. Data collections would be made by GCMRC staff and in conjunction with ongoing 

food base studies. We estimate that this work would cost approximately $75K. 

After an attempt to select from among the proposals, the BAHG was asked to rank the proposals 

to determine their priorities for funding. Replies from seven BAHG members were received prior 

to the second conference call (One vote was added after the conference call because it had been 

sent prior to the call but not received by the Chair). The results of that ranking exercise are as 

follows: 

- 3 -
BAHG Report to TWG for April 2-3, 2007 Meeting 

FY 08 Draft Budget and Workplan Development 

FY 06 Carryover Project Funding Priorities 

Project 

1 2 3 4 5 

1 = highest rank 

Voter 3 1 5 2 4

Ranking 1 3 2 5 4

2 4 1 5 3

1 4 3 2 5

1 2 4 4 4

1 2 4.5 3 4.5

4 3 2 1 5

Median 1 3 2.5 3.5 4.25

Mean 1.5 2.7 3.0 3.7 4.2

Amount: $6K $63K $20K $100K $75K 

Cum $: $6K $69K $89K $189K $264K 

Available: $189K 

Project 1: CMINs Workshop Facilitation 

Project 2: Lees Ferry Trout 

Project 3: Additional Sonic Tags 

Project 4: GCMRC LTEP EIS Funding 

Project 5: Foodbase Studies 

As a result of the vote, the BAHG agreed to recommend projects 1, 2, and 3 for funding. They 

wished to have further discussion of projects 4 and 5 at the TWG meeting at which time there 

might be more information on GCMRC needs for funding to support the LTEP EIS. 

(2) FY 08 Budget and Workplan: The AMWG has indicated that they would like to review the 

TWG draft budget and workplan priorities prior to submission of a TWG recommendation. 

Reclamation is in the process of setting up that meeting, which will be held between mid-May 

and mid-June. The BAHG agreed in its first conference call that the FY 08 budget would largely 

be a continuation of FY 07 projects, however there would be opportunities to discuss new starts 

if funding is available. To portray a draft budget presentation for AMWG, the BAHG agreed to 

develop a presentation for the TWG that would identify proposed priorities of funding based on 

existing AMWG priorities, program goals, planning document categories (core monitoring, 

research and development, and experimentation), GCMRC program areas, and resources. 

A presentation was submitted to the BAHG and discussed in the second conference call. That 

presentation is submitted to the TWG by Reclamation and GCMRC for your evaluation. The 

GCMRC portion has been sent to you separately by John Hamill. The Reclamation-administered 

draft FY 08 budget breakdown, with comparison to the FY 07 budget, is presented below. 

- 4 -
BAHG Report to TWG for April 2-3, 2007 Meeting 

FY 08 Draft Budget and Workplan Development 

FY 07-FY 08 Draft Budget Comparisons

Reclamation Administered Funds

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

AMWG

TWG

Contract Admin

NHPA

NEPA/ESA

NPS Permitting

Tribal Support

Tribal Resource Monitoring

Experiment Funds

FY 07

FY 08

The Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group has submitted a budget request to the BAHG for FY 08 

for implementation of the Archaeological Site Treatment Plan that will be completed later this 

spring. The Bureau of Reclamation and GCMRC proposed $300K for this activity. The 

CRAHG’s request exceeds the amounts first proposed by Reclamation and GCMRC by just over 

$259,000. The BAHG recognized three potential resolutions of this difference: (1) remove the 

amount from other projects; (2) remove the amount from the experimental fund, and; (3) reduce 

the CRAHG request. Rather than explore this resolution prior to the TWG and AMWG meetings, 

the BAHG decided to wait and hear from those committees before proceeding. 

Other BAHG discussion included a proposal by Mary Barger that, beginning with the FY 09 

budget, GCMRC should show full burden for all projects and a prioritized list of projects that 

would be accomplished if they get cost share dollars (USGS presently is providing $1 million to 

offset their burden). The BAHG did not reach a consensus or vote on this request. It can be 

discussed at the April TWG meeting for feedback to the BAHG. 

- 5 -