Budget AHG/TWG/GCMRG/USBR 

Combined Budget Conference Call 

June 14, 2010 

Conducting: Shane Capron, TWG Chair Convened: 1 p.m. (MDT)

Participants: 

Matthew Andersen, GCMRC/USGS 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

George Caan, Colo. River Commission/NV 

Marianne Crawford, USBR 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Dave Garrett, m3Research/Science Advisors 

Paul Grams, USGS/GCMRC 

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC 

Chris Harris, Colo. River Board CA 

Norm Henderson, NPS 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Lisa Iams, USBR 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust 

Glen Knowles, USBR 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Barbara McKenzie, USGS/GCMRC 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Steve Mietz, NPS/GRCA 

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY) 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Commission/NV 

Dave Wegner, member of the public 

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Introduction. Dennis explained that since it was difficult to get a majority of the BAHG together, it was 

decided to have a combined conference call with the BAHG and TWG members in hopes that the 

discussion would set the stage for a more effective and efficient meeting on June 29-30. He said in the 

interim there have been some questions posed about the pages in the workplan that look at the 

projected release volumes and daily release ranges for 2011 and some concern that Reclamation was 

getting ahead of itself by putting out this much detail at this time. He said he just sent out an e-mail that 

gives a little more clarification and an apology that the change didn’t get made in the plan itself but there 

are three points that he tried to make in the e-mail concerning the projections: 1) We are in a year under 

existing compliance where there is a wide range in the forecasts that are projected, volumes anywhere 

from 8.25 to 14 maf, and that as the year proceeds, these projections will improve and modeling 

capability will more accurately portray what will be the final release volume; 2) DOI agencies are having 

discussions concerning the hydrograph and are focusing on processes by which there might be a 

recommendation for one or more hydrographs that would fit within existing compliance, butthat process 

has not been completed yet; 3) as we move through the adaptive management program and more 

information becomes available and people are looking at the potential for transitions from an 

experimental phase to a more management oriented phase, there may be implications about whether 

we’re still continuing to emphasize experiments or whether we’re really moving forward to establishing 

some more standard changes in operations. That consideration begs the question of the relative roles of 

the TWG, AMWG, and the Department. Consequently, the program is in a hiatus of needing to provide 

information to the TWG upon which to develop a hydrograph recommendation but feeling that there is 

not a place or time where they can do that and do justice to the process. 

Rick said he wanted to clarify the process that the TWG would have an opportunity to consider one or 

more hydrographs at the upcoming TWG meeting. Dennis said that nothing has changed. In the time 

before the next meeting, GCMRC will have completed some of their modeling work and be in a better 

position to provide more information on expected hydrologic conditions. Rick expressed concern that one 

of the things that came out of the Ecosystem Modeling Workshop was that release fluctuations would 

create a negative mass balance. 

ACTION ITEM: Any additional concerns should be sent via e-mail to Shane Capron by COB Thursday, 

June 17. 

Because GCMRC staff will be at a conference in Las Vegas at the time of the next TWG meeting, it was 

decided to hold a Webinar/Conference Call on Wednesday, June 21 from 1-2 p.m. (AZ time, 2-3 p.m. 

MDT) for a discussion on hydrology and sediment modeling. John said he expects approval of their 

report by June 18 but is a little concerned that there isn’t much wiggle room if something goes haywire 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2 

DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2010 Combined Conference Call 

between now and this Friday. There is no time for them to be able to present their findings without 

Reclamation approval given the sensitivity of the issue. He said their presentation would probably be 30 

minutes and then allow some time for discussion. He said they would only be providing information and 

wouldn’t get into making a recommendation. He feels the call could be done in an hour. He said USGS 

assumed MLFF with steady flows, Sept-Oct and a potential high flow in one or both years. They would 

be using the FY11 hydrograph as it was provided in early April. Rick asked about other hydrographs that 

people may want to present. John said they are using the WY FY11 hydrology, 11 maf and 8.23 and 

then they’re evaluating several different scenarios for how the dam would be operated, like MLFF, 

equalized monthly flows, SASF, etc., imposed on the WY11 hydrology as of April 8. John said he sent 

out a memo to the TWG several weeks ago with the scope of what their analysis would be. 

Budget Discussion

Norm said that since so much of the budget revolves around the hydrograph whether any assumptions 

could be made. Dennis said with the amount of variability that even the range of annual volumes is very 

high and the 24-month study is run every month. He said August is the first tier for a cut point on the next 

water year and then in April under the interim guidelines is where it’s decided you establish whether or 

not you have to go to balancing or equalization. As far as sideboards, Dennis said he couldn’t offer up a 

lot except to say that the range is probably between 8.23 and 14 maf. The most probable right now 

includes some level of equalization. He said that what was sent out in the graphs that they’re now 

removing does portray about 11 maf but he didn’t know beyond that. He said there is existing compliance 

so people need to recognize that if something is crafted in a hydrograph that goes outside existing 

compliance, additional compliance will certainly have to be worked into the process. 

Major funding shifts in GCMRC FY11-12 Biennial Work Plan. John explained the accommodations 

GCMRC made for new initiatives and projects that were deferred. He referred to Attachment 3 of his 

June 9, 2010, memo (attached). He said it was a little vague because there wasn’t a bottom line 

recommendation or formal language adopted but they did include funding for non-native fish control and 

for development of an LTEMP EIS. They freed up some money in Reclamation’s budget as well as 

moving money from GCMRC’s budget to Reclamation’s budget to allow for about $600K in FY11 for nonnative fish control and an additional $300K in FY12. Shane said he didn’t see where the $600K was in 

the budget as a line item. Barbara said it’s not shown as a line item but said when she talked with 

Dennis, it was agreed to not increase that value since it was coming from different sides of the budget on 

line 24 but just to put it in the comments. Because the proposals have not been implemented, they would 

show the budget as it was proposed until direction was received to actually move the funding around. 

• Extirpated Species Workshop. Steve said in terms of #8 that went to the AMWG and was voted on in 

terms of $25K for an extirpated species workshop wasn’t identified as an AMWG priority. He said he 

wasn’t sure how to make that an AMWG priority other than the process isn’t being followed the entire 

time to make it shown as a priority but it’s still not in the budget or hasn’t been addressed. He asked 

John how they reached that decision. John said it was his recollection that every year there are 

proposals to get more actively involved in extirpated species with the AMP budget and it runs into a 

brick wall about whether it’s appropriate that the AMP deal with extirpated species. He said he makes 

some judgments where he thinks there is broad support for items that are likely to be funded, but 

spending AMP money on something there hasn’t been a lot of support for is not something he wants 

to get engaged in. Steve said he didn’t understand how John reached that conclusion based on the 

fact that it was passed by the TWG and made it to the AMWG discussions for doing the work. He 

said he is having trouble with following the process and how now the project doesn’t have broad 

support. He asked if he needed to document the broad support. John said the issues came forward 

not because everyone wanted them but because it was felt they needed to go forward and be 

discussed and that there wasn’t broad consensus that everything would be funded associated with 

the 20 different motions the TWG passed. John said the TWG never voted to fund a workshop but to 

forward the issue to AMWG for further discussion. Shane told Steve it would be voted on again by 

the TWG and then sent back to the AMWG for a decision. Steve informed Shane he would bring up 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3 

DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2010 Combined Conference Call 

an amendment for an extirpated species workshop. Shane said if anyone has something they want 

brought up in the TWG meeting, they should send that information to Shane. 

Experimental Fund Expenditures and Projected Balance. John directed people to look at Attachment 4

of his memo which addresses how Experimental Flow Funds will be use to do work associated with 

preparation of a HFE Science Plan (page 204 of BWP). 

• Leslie said there was a disconnect in #1 with the explanation and the title of the narrative in the BWP. 

John said if there were any other changes, they should be sent to him as soon as possible. 

• Rick questioned letting stakeholders do work and having GCMRC review. He said he was trying to 

understand the differentiation. He mentioned the Douglas work that had been done. Helen told him 

that work was outside the program whereas the project he mentioned is part of a program GCMRC is 

developing with an approach to the AMP. 

• Shane questioned the use of the Experimental Flow Fund and how it would square with the AMWG 

since it was to be used for future high flow experiments. John said that the increased monitoring is 

needed to support an HFE. Rick said he thought that perhaps the cap on power revenues isn’t 

relevant and that the program needs clarity and a policy call from Anne Castle. John said GCMRC 

tried to be responsive to AMWG’s direction on how to use EFF money. 

Reduction in Science Advisors Budget. Dave Garrett asked if he felt it would be helpful to share a memo 

he sent to John about what SA services would be reduced as a result of the $50K being taken out of 

their budget. John said he felt that was appropriate and told Dave to forward the memo to the TWG. 

Reduction in NPS Permitting. Steve said he didn’t understand why there would be a reduction in the 

money allocated for processing NPS permits. He said the funding needs to continue. Matthew told him 

that this didn’t appear to require funding at this level since there weren’t as many permits needed in 

association with AMP work, and that it no longer requires a full-time employee to do the permitting work. 

Steve suggested having a separate conversation with NPS, GMCRC, and USBR to discuss line item 

further. 

Reduction of POAHG Funding. Mike said he wants to talk with other POAHG members to determine 

what their needs will be for FY11 and FY12. 

LTEMP EIS. George Caan asked he could find the scope of the LTEMP EIS and the associated costs. 

Dennis told him that the LTEP costs were used as a predictor for how much the LTEMP EIS might cost. 

However, he said the Department has a better idea of what they want. 

Rick asked if the LTEMP EIS would result in a new ROD for dam operations. Dennis said that since the 

program began in 1997 there have been three large scale experiments. There’s a level of uncertainty in 

planning for those and the Department hasn’t told them anything about what is being planned. 

Dave asked whether the LTEP and LTEMP EIS process might be merged. Clayton reminded everyone 

that Anne Castle said she thought it would take three years to complete the LTEMP EIS. Rick suggested 

they be put together and get the whole thing on the table to ensure there are sufficient funds to do the 

work. Leslie said the cost would be determined by the scope of work. Dennis pointed out that 

Reclamation does not believe the $250K/$500K allocated by GCMRC will be enough, which is why 

Reclamation moved $300K to that line item from the treatment plan in FY2011. 
June 9, 2010

MEMORANDUM

To: Technical Work Group

From: John Hamill, Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Southwest 

Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona 

Subject: DRAFT Fiscal Year 2011-12 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Biennial Work Plan, Budget, and Hydrograph (BWP)

Attached is the subject BWP for your consideration (Attachment 1). The BWP addresses several 

recommendations from DOI and the AMWG to provide additional funding emphasis to the 

following projects:

Nonnative fish control (shown in Reclamations portion of the BWP)

LTEMP EIS development (shown in Reclamations portion of the BWP)

Increased aquatic food base, sediment, rainbow trout, and Glen Canyon recreation 

experience monitoring to support the evaluation of the proposed HFE Protocol

A new study to evaluate rainbow trout use of the Paria River to Badger Rapid reach (the 

reach immediately below Lee’s Ferry)

HBC monitoring and translocation above Chute Falls

Hydropower economic analyses by WAPA with independent oversight by GCMRC

To achieve a balanced budget, a number of projects were scaled back or deferred to 

accommodate these projects. (Attachment 2) In addition, GCMRC assumed several changes in 

Reclamation’s portion of the budget to accommodate the new projects. (Attachment 3) Proposed 

expenditures from the Experimental Fund are detailed in Attachment 4. Our responses to TWG 

concerns related to the Preliminary FY11-12 budget are provided in Attachment 5. GCMRC 

recognizes that uncertainties exist in the scope and direction of several activities including 

nonnative fish management, the HFE protocol, and the LTEMP EIS. Our budget and work plan 

reflects our recommended approach based on what we expect will occur; however, future 

changes may be needed once the scope and direction of these activities is determined.

United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

2255 NORTH GEMINI DRIVE, MS-9394

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001

928 556-7094 Telephone

928 556-7092 Fax
In the last two years, a flat budget along with an increased emphasis on funding for management 

and compliance actions has greatly increased competition for funding in the AMP. GCMRC is 

concerned that this shift in emphasis will adversely impact the AMP resource monitoring and 

applied research projects that address high priority information needs. As you will see in 

reviewing the BWP, this shift will significantly impact projects that are aimed at assessing the 

status of key resources and evaluating the effectiveness of management or experimental actions. 

I believe this has serious implications for the ability of the AMP to “learn by doing” and assess 

progress towards achieving desired future conditions. GCMRC supports implementation of 

compliance and management actions but believes a strategy is needed to seek additional revenues

to meet the growing demands for science and management in the AMP. We believe that DOI 

and the AMWG need to work together to address this issue.

After considering recommendations from the TWG, GCMRC will develop a final draft BWP for 

AMWG review and approval.

Your participation in this review process is appreciated. 

JOHN HAMILL

Chief, GCMRC

Attachments: 

1- FY 11-12 BWP

2- Major funding shifts

3- List of deferred projects

4- Summary of expenditures from the Experimental Fund

5- GCMRC response to TWG concerns/recommendations

cc: Secretary’s Designee
Attachment 1 Biennial Work Plan

GCDAMP Draft BWP 

FY11-12_06-09-10.pdf
Attachment 2 GCMRC FY11 and FY12 Major Deferred or Scaled Back Projects 

Projects that were cut to address AMWG/DOI recommendations are highlighted in grey

Project Number /Title FY11 FY12 Comments

GOAL 1—Aquatic Food Base

BIO 1.M1 Aquatic Food Base Monitoring 

 

84,200 

 

84,200 

Deferred field sampling except at 

Diamond Creek and Lees Ferry in 

FY11-12

GOAL 2—Native Fishes

BIO 2.M4 Monitoring of Mainstem Fishes

 

518,427 

 

239,300 

Deferred increased mainstem 

monitoring FY11-12 subject to 

change based on fish data 

analyses

BIO 2.R7 Stock Assessment of Grand 

Canyon Native Fish 48,700 49,000 Decreased analysis of fish data 

BIO 2.R13 Remote PIT Tag Reading 84,500 84,500 Defer expansion of PIT tag system 

BIO 2.R17 Nonnative Control Plan 

Science Support 76,900 76,900 Decrease staff support

BIO 2.tbd Fall Steady Flows Thermal 

Imaging

 

86,200 

 

86,200 

Deferred 

GOAL 6—Riparian and Springs

BIO 6.M2 Bird Monitoring / Alternating 

Years with Vegetation 

Transect Monitoring

- 53,000

Defer bird monitoring FY12

BIO 6.R4 Arthropod Monitoring 

Research & Development 0 95,400

Proposed by PEP to be 

implemented in alternating years 

FY10, FY12

GOAL 7—Quality of Water

PHY 7.R2 Integrated Flow, Temperature, 

and Sediment Modeling of the 

CRE

145,200 145,200

Defer further model R&D

GOAL 9--Recreation

REC 9.R5 Evaluate Relation between 

Flows and Recreation 

Experience 

225,000 225,000

Deferred in FY09-12 

REC 9.R6 1973 Weeden Campsite 

Survey Revisited 75,000 75,000

Deferred in FY09-12 

REC 9.R7 Update Regional Recreation 

Economic Study 250,000 250,000

Deferred in FY09-12 

GOAL 10--Power and Economics

HYD 10. tbd Phase I - Results of Economic 

Value Workshop 117,300 117,300

Deferred FY11-12

GOAL 11—Cultural Resources

CUL 11.R1 Cultural Research & 

Development towards Core 

Monitoring, Phase II 

45,000 45,000

Reduced scope of work in FY11-12

CUL 11.R3 Geomorphic Model of 

Archaeological Site 

Vulnerability 

266,100 266,100

Deferred in FY09-12 
Project Number /Title FY11 FY12 Comments

GOAL 12— Administrative / Management

DASA 12.D1 Quadrennial Remote Sensing 

Overflight 83,500 116,500

Decreased savings for overflight 

FY11-12 

DASA 12.D1 Hyperspectral Overflight for 

Vegetation Mapping 95,200 95,200

Deferred FY10-12 

DASA 12.D3 Library Operations / Scanning 

Support 66,200 66,700

Decreased to 1/2 time position, 

DASA 12.D9 Integrated Image Analysis and 

Change Detection 89,600 89,600

Deferred 1984 Sandbar Image 

Analysis FY10-12 

PLAN 12.P1 Support and Enhancement of 

Ecosystem Modeling Efforts 143,000 143,000

Defer model expansion, publication 

of results & MATA workshop FY11-

12

PLAN 12.P5 NEW Desired Future 

Conditions Facilitation & 

Decision Support

60,500 60,500

Deferred FY11-12

ADM 12.A4 (B) Science Advisors Support

50,000 50,000

Reduced services FY11-12

ADM 12.A5 GCMRC Component of SBSC 

Sys Admin Support 72,900 72,900

Defer expanded GCMRC Website 

development, 

TOTAL GCMRC Major Deferred or Scaled 

Back Projects 2,683,427 2,586,500
Attachment 3 -- Major funding shifts in the GCMRC FY 11-12 Biennial Work Plan 

(June 8, 2010 draft)

LTEMP EIS Support needs $250K FY11 & FY12

o To be held in reserve by Reclamation

o Assumes an additional $250K of matching funds from Reclamation

Nonnative Fish Suppression Contingency Fund needs FY11 $600K, FY12 $300K

o To be held in reserve by Reclamation

o To be allocated in accordance with the Nonnative Fish Environmental Assessment

GCMRC recommends Reclamation Funds to be redirected for LTEMP EIS & Nonnative Fish 

Suppression Contingency Fund

o 1⁄2 POAHG funding FY11 $28,092, FY12 $28,935

o All Compliance Documents Funding FY11 $50,584, FY12 $52,101

o 1⁄2 Admin Support for NPS Permitting Funding FY11 $60,120, FY12 $61,924

o All Nonnative Fish Suppression Contingency Plan Funding FY11 $144,819, FY12 $50,521

o Canyon Treatment Plan funding $300K FY11

TOTAL Redirected Reclamation Budget: FY11 $583,615, FY12 $193,481
Attachment 4 -- Experimental Fund Expenditures and Projected Balance -- FY10 through FY12

Experimental Fund Projected Balance FY10 through FY12 

BOR Experimental Fund Summary 

FY10 Gross 

Actual 

Funding from 

BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

Gross FY11 

Proposed 

Funding from 

BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

Gross FY12 

Proposed 

Funding from 

BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

Comments 

Beginning Balance at

Start of Fiscal Year 

 

 - 427,174 

 

286,672 

Contributions to 

Experimental Fund 

from Reclamation 

 

493,500 505,838 

 

521,013 

BIO 2.E18

NEW Evaluation of Trout Movement, Natal Origins 

and Alternatives for Controlling Rainbow Trout 

Populations Near the LCR (PBR)

 

 - 198,631 

 

311,610 

FY11 Total project = 

$437,201; FY12 Total project 

= $459,061 

BIO 1.M1 HFE Science Plan Implementation Aquatic Food 

Base

 

 - 100,000 

 

100,000 

$100k per year Goal 1 FY11 

& FY12 

BIO 4.M2 HFE Science Plan Implementation Monitoring 

Lees Ferry Fish

 

 - 22,709 

 

22,709 

$22,709 Goal 4 FY11 & 

FY12 

PHY 8.M2 HFE Science Plan Implementation Sediment 

 - 300,000 

 

300,000 

$300k per year Goal 8 FY11 

& FY12 

REC 9.R4 Evaluate Recreation Values and Visitor 

Experience Quality in the Glen Canyon Reach 25,000 

 

25,000 

$25k per year Goal 9 FY11 & 

FY12 

PLAN 12.E7 LTEMP EIS Support

 -

 

 -

Total compliance $250K per 

year FY11 & FY12; Funds to 

be redirected from 

Reclamation in FY11 & FY12 

EXP 7 HFE Synthesis of Knowledge (Study 7) 

66,326 -

 

 -

Total Expenditures 

(66,326) (646,340)

 

(759,319)

Balance at End of Fiscal Years $ 427,174 $ 286,672 $ 48,366 
Attachment 5 -- GCMRC Response to FY 2011-12 Preliminary Budget Recommendation to 

the Adaptive Management Work Group - April 6, 2010

MOTION: TWG has reviewed the preliminary FY 2011-12 biennial budget provided by 

GCMRC and Reclamation and is forwarding that budget to AMWG along with a list of concerns 

for AMWG consideration and feedback. This recommendation is based a two-year biennial 

budget as requested by AMWG at their August 2009 meeting. The TWG will work with 

GCMRC and Reclamation to develop a final biennial budget recommendation for FY 2011-12 

and a proposed work plan and hydrograph over the summer, incorporating input from AMWG, 

using the recommended biennial budget process.

TWG requests either AMWG concurrence with the TWG recommendations on the “Issues of 

Concern” or further direction on how to resolve these.

Issues of Concern:

1. Implement a new start in the work plan for power economics which will be carried out by 

WAPA in FY 2011 and 2012, as described in the proposal provided by WAPA dated 

3/15/10. WAPA will perform these tasks with no cost to the GCDAMP, and will provide 

the actual cost as a cooperator in the budget spreadsheet. The work will be part of the 

work plan and coordinated and reviewed by GCMRC. The work plan would be developed 

by GCRMC and WAPA in coordination with the TWG. This will result in costs to 

GCMRC that will need to be provided to oversee and provide peer review of this project. 

(10/3/3)

GCMRC Response: This project is included in GCMRC’s BWP. Funding is included GCMRC 

to coordinate the work plan and provide peer review for this new initiative, and coordinate 

timely publication of findings pursuant to USGS publication standards. 

2. (Line 175) Humpback chub translocations above Chute Falls have been deferred by 

GCMRC. TWG believes this is an important compliance requirement, and a project that 

has shown great potential for positive effects on the LCR population and should be 

funded in FY 2011 and 2012. (No objection)

GCMRC Response: Funding to implement humpback chub monitoring and translocation above 

Chute fall is included in the BWP GCMRC staff time is included to help develop a long term 

study plan for the project in coordination with FWS. Continued funding of this activity by the 

AMP will impact other elements of the AMP science program.

3. TWG is concerned about the continued use of the experimental fund for other purposes 

within the budget. Without setting aside the experimental fund, it may be difficult to carry 

out flow experiments in the future. Should there be an HFE in FY 11 or 12, having this 

small amount of money available for data gathering and analysis would mean no 

meaningful study. The default would be determining the effect of an HFE through the 
monitoring program alone. An HFE should only be conducted to answer direct science 

questions. Therefore, a science plan should be developed and funding should be identified 

for this purpose. (10/3/3)

GCMRC Response: GCMRC does not believe that the use of the experimental fund was or 

should be limited only to high flow experiments. A summary table showing the experimental fund 

expenditure and balances for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 is attached (Attachment 3). 

4. (Line 24) TWG is concerned about the continued use of the warm water nonnative fish 

contingency fund for other purposes within the budget. (no objection)

GCMRC Response: The BWP proposes depositing $900K into the nonnative fish contingency 

fund in FY 11 and 1 ($600K in FY 11 and $300K in FY 12). These funds would be allocated by 

Reclamation subject to nonnative fish control projects defined through the Nonnative fish EA 

and tribal consultation. 

5. (Line 166) GCMRC has moved numerous projects out of the budget to an unfunded 

projects list. Many of these issues represent compliance requirements or other important 

projects that should be carried out to further the goals of the GCDAMP. The AMWG 

should consider other mechanisms for acquiring funding for these projects, such as 

identified in the biennial budget process paper. (13/2/2)

GCMRC Response: GCMRC agrees with the TWG that this is a significant issue that needs to 

be addressed by the AMWG and DOI. 

6. Although GCMRC has designated projects in the spreadsheet as core monitoring (COR), 

TWG has only provisionally approved the sediment-related programs at this time and will 

be considering the other programs over the next few years. (no objection)

GCMRC Response: All such Core Monitoring designations are made with the understanding 

that they are subject to TWG and AMWG review in accordance with the Step 4 approval process 

in the general core monitoring plan.

7. (Line 115) Add funding in FY 2011 for DFC support (60k), including facilitation and 

decision support. (No objection)

GCMRC Response: No funding was specifically included in GCMRC’s portion of the BWP for 

this activity. We believe the Knowledge Assessment and ecosystem modeling project can help 

address this need. 

8. (Line 71) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should include $25,000 to fund an Extirpated 

Species Workshop to achieve the following:

a. Finalize and prioritize species list
b. Assess current compliance environment for various implementation strategies

c. Develop a strategic framework for implement extirpated species goal within AMP

GCMRC Response: The AMWG or DOI needs to determine whether funding for extirpated 

species work (Goal 3) is an AMP priority. It is currently not reflected in the AMWG priority 

questions or called for in the Monitoring and Research Plan. Funding this out of DASA 

12.D5.10 will impact a variety projects which need GIS support.

GCMRC is willing to assist with planning and organizing this workshop if the AMP decides to 

sponsor this activity. However, the direct costs for the workshop (i.e. conference room rental, 

travel reimbursements, speakers’ fees, facilitators’ fees, etc.) will not be covered by GCMRC.

9. (Line 188) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should include $89,568 to fund deferred 

project DASA 12.D9.10-11. This one-time study is needed to aid the AMP in quantifying 

a desired future condition for sediment resources. This work could be funded by reducing 

the DASA 12.D5.10 cooperative agreement by $89,568 for one year or $45,000 over two 

years. (11/3/2)

GCMRC Response: Funding this work seems premature until the DFC process determines that 

this analysis is needed. Funding this out of DASA 12.D5.10 will impact GIS support to a variety 

of projects and delay project deliverables. Also see GCMRC Response 7, above

10. (Line 160) Evaluation of rainbow and brown trout movement . . . this funding is 

inadequate for the purpose of studying and implementing possible alternatives to lethal 

fish removal. We suggest an increase to $200 to $300K. As an alternative, we suggest a 

budget correction after tribal consultation and resulting actions identified. (No objection)

GCMRC Response: The BWP include a detailed study plan for evaluating rainbow trout 

movement in the Paria to Badger Reach below Lee Ferry. We believe this study will help 

address questions related to the natal origins of rainbow trout and the feasibility of and strategy 

for removing fish in the Paria to Badger reach. 

11. (Line 168) Increased mainstem monitoring should be funded in FY 11 and 12. (No 

objection)

GCMRC Response: Mainstem fish monitoring was reduced in FY 11 to make funds available to 

address AMWG priorities provide funds for nonnative fish control. In FY 12 the mainstem 

monitoring will be restored to the FY 10 level of effort. Intensive sampling of the mainstem will 

occur in conjunction with any mechanical removal project that is implemented in FY 11 and 12.

12. (Line 186) Since this geomorphological modeling project assists in the identification of 

the impacts of dam operations vs. the impacts of natural effects, this project should be 

funded. (no objection)
GCMRC Response: We believe a geomorphic model may potentially assist in the identification 

of the impacts of dam operations on cultural sites and be useful to frame the future monitoring 

program. The geomorphic workshop planned for later this year will better define the scope and 

benefits of a model. Due to the relatively high expected cost (~$250K) and program funding 

constraints, GCMRC does not support model development in FY 11 or 12. 

13. (Lines 38-42) Recommend that DOI and DOE meet with the tribes to discuss including a 

CPI increase for tribal participation to those tribes that utilize their allocation, 

consultation and tribal monitoring programs. Another tribal entity may participate in FY 

11 and additional funding may be necessary. (No objection)

GCMRC Response: Funding for tribal participation is not within the purview of GCMRC. This 

is provided with DOI appropriated funds outside the scope of the AMP science budget

14. (Line 29) Develop methodologies to integrate tribal perspectives into the treatment plan. 

(no objection)

GCMRC Response: N/A. This project is managed by BOR.

15. The budget spreadsheet and work plan should include other projects being undertaken by 

cooperators using funds outside of the GCDAMP funding. (7/6/3)

GCMRC Response: We recommend that ancillary project descriptions, deliverables and 

associated cost should be indentified in an appendix to the BWP. We agree with Robert King’s 

comment at the last TWG meeting that the AMP budget/spreadsheet should not include funding 

being provided by other cooperators for GCDAMP ancillary projects 

16. TWG advises the AMWG that if a long term experimental management plan EIS is 

undertaken in FY11 or 12 the amount of power revenues requested in the budget will 

increase. (No objection)

GCMRC Response: GCMRC BWP provide for $250K of AMP funds to support a LTEMP EIS 

17. TWG recognizes that it does not have a formal process for evaluating and identifying a 

proposed hydrograph to the AMWG, and intends to undertake that development in this 

budget cycle. (8/7/1)

GCMRC Response: GCMRC staff support for the hydrograph development “process” should 

be factored into this discussion. 
Failed TWG “issues of concern”

1. (Line 184) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should include $117,273 to fund deferred 

project HYD 10.tbd, “Phase I – Results of Economic Value Workshop”. (6/7/3)

GCMRC Response: We support this work. However, the AMWG or DOI needs to determine 

whether additional economic analysis capacity is an AMP priority. It has been clearly identified 

as a priority by the Science Advisors and by previous NAS/NRC reviews of the program. 

However, it is currently not reflected in the AMWG priority questions or called for in the 

Monitoring and Research Plan. If this work is a priority it’s not apparent where the funding will 

come from.

2. (Line 66) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should initiate the development of a non-native 

fish control implementation plan that will include elements that will be scoped at the 

March 31st 2010 NNF workshop, but include the following elements:

o Define cooperating groups and roles 

 Agencies and tribes involved

 Roles of agencies and tribes in plan development 

 Roles of agencies and tribes in plan implementation

 Role of conservation measures 

o Define geographic and programmatic scope of plan 

o Outline possible control alternatives for inclusion in plan 

o Compliance and consultation and science needs 

o Completion schedule and deadlines 

o Funding needs for implementation 

o Draft outline of chapters of plan 

GCMRC Response: GCMRC supports this initiative and believes that if the plan is developed 

collaboratively and with AMP support, it will facilitate implementation of nonnative fish 

management actions. Except for GCMRC science support to develop the plan, funding for 

developing this management plan should not be taken from the AMP science budget. Also the

development of this plan should be coordinated with ongoing tribal consultation and the NEPA 

activities related to nonnative fish management. 

3. (Line 143 & 161): SCORE report – FY 11 & 12 are “tight” budget years. We suggest 

deferring this project. (3/13/0)

GCMRC Response: GCMRC supports the development of a SCORE report and Knowledge 

Assessment in FY 11 and 12. We believe they are needed inform the LTEMP EIS and GCMRC 

and AMP strategic planning.