From: Randy Peterson 

To: Norm Henderson, Denny Fenn, Jeff Lovich, Steve Gloss, Ted Melis 

Date: December 16, 2003 11:26 AM 

Subject: Draft budget process and summary spreadsheets 

Date: Dec. 16, 2003 11:26 AM 

GCMRC management and TWG chair, 

Attached is the start of a budget process agreement (to be followed in the future by more extensive 

process discussion and timeline), and a pair of budget summary spreadsheets to work on a 2-year budget 

cycle. The pair of spreadsheets are assumed to be used in the month noted in the spreadsheet footer, 

January of even- or odd-numbered years (print out the sheets on legal paper). Note that the 

spreadsheets don't contain meaningful numbers, so your review of these should focus on the way the 

columns and rows interact and how the rows are blocked together into core monitoring, 

research/experimental, and management actions. 

Note the consistent numbering scheme to be used in both spreadsheets and work plans. These sheets 

intend to address the need to identify carryover and actual expenditures, and to group our efforts into 

categories important to AMP stakeholders. We propose this as a long-term format. Since the TWG is 

already sufficiently confused and troubled by the 2005 budget discussions, it probably makes sense to 

continue to use the current sheets for the 2005 budget, and implement this format this next summer/fall. 

Please let us know of any concerns about these documents by COB Thursday Dec. 18 - we plan on 

distributing them to the budget ad hoc group on Friday morning Dec 19 to keep moving budget progress 

forward. 

After initial review of the product/process discussion, we'll add to that document with additional 

milestones, timelines and process. 
From: Jeffrey Lovich 

To: Randall Peterson 

Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2004 10:45 AM 

Subject: Re: Draft budget process and summary spreadsheets 

Randy, 

The holiday season and an email backlog conspired to make my response this late. Helen has some 

comments on the grouping of some of the projects in your draft spreadsheets and she'll respond on that 

issue via separate email. The process sounds reasonable and we look forward to additional clarification 

on how to make this process more efficient. The two year cycle is something that we advocated so that is 

desirable from our perspective. One thing I would like to see added is a link to a spreadsheet and graph 

that gives a budget summary to show in real time how changes to one part of the budget affect other 

parts, especially the subtotals. I've received comments from other TWG members that such an interactive 

budget would be very useful as we go through detailed discussions in the future. I'm not an Excel guru so 

we should have discussion on that topic so that someone with greater agility in the program can craft 

such a tool. 
From: Helen Fairley 

To: Randall Peterson, Dennis Kubly 

Date: 1/2/2004 1:08:37 PM 

Subject: Re: Fwd: Draft budget process and summary spreadsheets 

Having just returned from training and vacation, this is my first opportunity to review your proposed 

budget format. I have a few observations to offer for group consideration before this becomes final: 

1) As we discussed at the last TWG budget ad hoc meeting (and according to information provided by 

Nancy Coulam when I first started this job), the tribal co-op agreements -- which I understand are 

currently still in limbo for FY04 and beyond-- funded the tribes for consultation purposes, not for 

monitoring purposes. The funding included logistical costs for one trip per tribe. Some of the tribes (e.g., 

S. Paiutes) chose to monitor archaeological sites and other resources during those trips, but that was not 

the OFFICIAL purpose of those trips. Other tribes (e.g. Navajo) adhere to the stated purpose of the co-op 

agreement and use their trips strictly for consulting with tribal officials and lawyers about AMP 

and CRE resource issues. In any case, the tribal trip funding has nothing to do with terrestrial ecosystem 

monitoring per se and therefore, the trip funds should not have been moved under the TEM category. 

Funding for tribal trips belongs under the administrative section of the budget, where it has been all along, 

at least until such time as DOI and the tribes re-negotiate the terms of those co-op agreements. 

2) In the FY05 workplan, GCMRC deliberately reorganized the old format in order to start moving away 

from categorizing projects as strictly physical, biological, and sociocultural, in recognition of the 

integrated nature of the CR ecosystem and the fact that many projects address multiple program 

concerns. The new format moves us back towards the old way of thinking. Also, we made a deliberate 

point of separating out sociocultural projects from unrelated "other" projects, but in the proposed budget 

format, they are lumped again. For presumably obvious reasons, I oppose having a catch- all category 

called "sociocultural and other". 

3) It was my understanding from discussions with Ted that it makes more sense to discuss experimental 

actions in tandem with the core monitoring projects (to which many experimental activities are tied), 

rather than group the diverse experimental actions together into a separate category. This is because 

many of the activities identified under "experimental actions" are extensions of and build upon ongoing 

core monitoring activities, and in some cases, the two can not easily be separated. Ted has been out of 

the office the whole time I have been gone (he will be back Jan. 5) so he hasn't had a chance to review 

this proposed budget format. He may have more to say about this issue. 

4) I question the rationale for lumping the Humpback Chub actions into their own category and 

separately categorizing other management actions apart from research/ experimental activities. Although 

Humpback Chub activities are clearly driven by management needs, many of the currently planned HBC 

activities involve doing research that will benefit our understanding of the ecosystem in a broader sense, 

and other management actions in the future may be de facto research projects in their own right. In fact, 

I would argue that just about everything we do in this program is driven by management objectives one 

way or another, so how do we draw this line? If we decide to stick with these budget categories, 

we will need to develop explicit definitions for distinguishing management actions from pure (?) research, 

etc. 

5) I'm not clear how this new format is showing carry over amounts, either with or without the sediment 

trigger. Do we need another column or two? 
From: John_Ritenour 

To: Dennis Kubly 

Date: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 9:49 AM 

Subject: Re: BAHG notes from the last series of meetings 

Dennis, 

Please feel free to share these with whomever you feel appropriate. I don't have a complete list of all the 

BAHG emails - when you send this out if I am your mailing list I will use that list in the future. 

I thought I'd capture a few notes regarding the budget process. You did very well in all these budget 

discussions of the last three months- it was quit a challenge. 

I think it would help to have a pure process BAHG meeting that did not include discussion of the budget 

content. With that possible I had the following thoughts about issues or items we could address: 

How can we display past years' budgets, actual expenditures in a past year, and carry-over funds. I think 

all carry-over money should be displayed in the budget process. 

Should GCMRC actually program known carry-over funds in the first draft budget (show their 

recommended use of carry-over). Or, should it just be identified and then let the BAHG or TWG decide 

what unfunded projects should receive priority consideration for the carry-over funds. We need to 

define the process to do the following: How do we approve and show the approval for carryover money 

to be spent on the same line item or budget item in the following new budget year. How do we show 

reprogramming for carry-over funds that BAHG or TWG does not approve to continue for a project or that 

are no longer needed for the same line item or budget item in the following budget year. 

 

If BAHG, TWG, and AMWG actually get on a budgeting cycle so that we approve the 06 budget 

sometime during FY05 then carry-over funds may not be known at the time of the final 06 approval so we 

need a process to address known carry-over funds that become available at different times in the budget 

cycle. We won't necessarily know there are 05 carryover funds until the fall of 2005 as FY06 begins and 

we need away to add 05 carryover funds to the 06 budget if that is the BAHG's desired plan - we might 

want to say any funds remain until the next outyear budget discussion (in this case it would be addressed 

in the 07 budget discussions). 

The spread sheet needs to show other agency funds in a separate column, not in the AMP column. 

Do we have a budget cycle time line, i.e., draft FY06 due to ad hoc/TWG on such-and-such a date, ad 

hoc review completed by, TWG review started, TWG approval date, AMWG approval, etc. 

The BAHG should establish some criteria to determine what work should be in-house or out-house (or 

both). Then when it is shown on the workplans we know how it was determined. As an aside, are USGS 

staff other than GCMRC considered in-house or out-house? 

How can we address multi-year needs in a single year budget cycle? A project approved in FY05 may be 

committing the same or additional dollars for 06 and beyond. Should we approve all years including out 

years' funding? An example would be research which usually needs three years to accomplish (pre-work, 

compliance, etc/field data gathering/ report writing). Do we provide all three years' funding in the first 

year's budget request or spread it out over each of the next three years. 

All budget presentations should follow a similiar format. This would include one each for written wor 

plans and presentations by GCMRC and BOR staff. 

What authority, if any, does GCMRC have to mix and match funds. 

And finally, I would like a summary of entry lines for all the projects described in the workplans. The 

BAHG should determine what needs to be captured. As a minimum I would like to see a summary of all 

Outsourced Science/Labor entries, as well as Logistics, Operations, and GCMRC Salary. Within the 

Administrative & Management and Technical Support Services catagories we may need to see a 

breakout of equipment, supplies & materials, awards, travel, training, etc. 

Again, you did a very good job of seeing the FY05 budget through the process. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Budget Products, Process and Timeline 

TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group 

December 11, 2003 

Budget Products 

Key concepts 

- Budgets will be formulated on a 2-year cycle to reduce the amount of AMP member and 

Reclamation/GCMRC staff time that budgeting is currently consuming. Detailed budget 

discussions will occur at the end of even-numbered calendar years, with approval by the 

AMWG during the January meeting of odd-numbered years. Budget discussions the 

following year will be limited to reporting on expenditures and program accomplishment, 

and to planning future initiatives 

- Budget document format will be agreed to by the AMWG and not changed unless 

directed by the AMWG 

- Budget documents will be fully integrated with proposed experimental actions and may 

contain alternative budget formulations that respond to triggering events such as sediment 

inputs or dam release probabilities 

- Budget documents will include past spending histories, future projections, and funding 

source breakdowns. Budget graphics will illustrate various breakdowns between basic 

program areas. 

- Budget proposals (particularly new initiatives) will be distributed to the Budget Ad Hoc 

Group, TWG and AMWG sufficiently in advance to allow proper review of documents 

prior to consideration by each group. A minimum of 2 weeks review time is required for 

each subgroup and 1 month for the AMWG. 

Budget summary spreadsheet and workplans 

- Summary spreadsheet and workplans will be fully coordinated between Reclamation and 

GCMRC and will be sent out as a complete package, not in pieces 

- Numbering, descriptions and costs will be consistent between summary spreadsheet and 

workplans 

- Summary spreadsheet will be broken down into sections describing: 

o Administration and management costs (both Reclamation, GCMRC and tribal) 

o Programmatic Agreement and humpback chub actions (in the future, these might 

be incorporated into other basic categories shown immediately below) 

o Core monitoring (terrestrial, integrated, aquatic, socio-cultural) 

o Research and Experimental actions (terrestrial, integrated, aquatic, socio-cultural) 

o Management actions 

o USGS overhead costs 

o Income sources 

- Workplans will contain enough detail to allow the TWG/AMWG to determine if the 

proposed project will be able to answer the general and specific questions asked by these 

groups 

- Workplans will contain a 5-year funding history (forward-looking through the budget 

being proposed and backward-looking for the remainder). GCMRC staff costs and 

logistics will be appropriately included in specific projects. 

An example of the budget summary spreadsheet (absent meaningful budget numbers) is included 

as Attachment A for both even- and odd-numbered years in the 2-year budget cycle. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

Reclamation Administration

A Adaptive Management Work GroupA.1 Personnel Costs 151,000 A.2 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 13,000 A.3 Reclamation Travel 18,000 A.4 Facilitation Contract 21,000 A.5 Other 9,000 

Adaptive Management Work Group Subtotal 0 0 212,000 

B Technical Work GroupB.1 Personnel Costs 69,000 

B.2 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 15,000 B.3 Reclamation Travel 17,000 B.4 TWG Chair Reimbursement 21,000 B.5 Other 2,000 

Technical Work Group Subtotal 0 0 124,000 

C Other Reclamation CostsC.1 Compliance Documents 26,000 

C.2 Contract Administration 25,000 

Other Reclamation Costs Subtotal 0 0 51,000 Reclamation Administration Subtotal 0 0 387,000 USGS Administration

D Administrative and Management 

D.1 Administrative Operations(1) 620,000 

D.2 Program Planning & Management 274,000 

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

D.3 AMWG, TWG 45,000 D.4 Independent Reviews 222,000 D.5 Public Outreach 85,000 

Adminsistrative and Management Subtotal 0 0 1,246,000 

E Technical Support Services 

E.1 Geographic Information System 160,000 

E.2 Data Base Management System 128,000 E.3 Library 79,000 E.4 Survey Operations 126,000 

E.5 Systems Administration 242,000 

E.6 Airborne Remote Sensing - Core Monitoring 163,000 

E.7 Web page and product development 0 E.8 Logistics Operations 

Technical Support Services Subtotal 0 0 898,000 

USGS Administration Subtotal 0 0 2,144,000 Tribal Consultation

F Cooperative Agreements with TribesF.1 Hopi Tribe 80,000 F.2 Hualapai Tribe 80,000 F.3 Navajo Nation 80,000 

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475

F.4 Pueblo of Zuni 80,000 F.5 Southern Paiute 80,000 

Tribal Consultation Subtotal 0 0 400,000 

TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 0 0 2,931,000 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENTG.1 Reclamation Administration 43,000 

G.2 Database and GIS 0G.3 NPS-GRCA Monitoring Costs 200,000 G.4 NPS-GLCA Monitoring Costs 28,000 G.5 NN & GLCA Treatment Plan and Implementation 100,000 G.6 Whole Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation 0 G.7 Zuni Conservation Program Mitigation 0 G.8 TCP GIS Documentation 0 TOTAL PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 371,000 HUMPBACK CHUB PLAN ACTIONS

H.1 Willow Beach Genetics Assessment 0 H.2 Genetics Refugium 40,000 

H.3 HBC Genetics Evaluation 0 H.4 Feasibility of HBC Augmentation 0 H.5 HBC Translocation to Tributaries 25,000 H.6 Temperature Control Device (TCD) 200,000 

H.7 Dam Operations Experiment 50,000 

H.8 Sediment, Turbidity Augmentation 50,000 H.9 Scientific, Recreation Impact Assessment 11,000 

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899

H.10 Bright Angel Non-native Fish Removal 167,000 

H.11 Tributary Non-native Fish Survey, Removal 0 

H.12 LCR Confluence NNF Mechanical Removal 0 

H.13 Fish Monitoring below Diamond Creek 50,000 H.14 Invasive Species Management Plan 0 H.15 Monitoring Parasites and Diseases 50,000 H.16 Development of a LCR Management Plan 0 H.17 Concurrent LCR, Mainstem HBC Pop Est. 250,000 

H.188AMWG Outreach Program 0 

H.19 Genetics Management Plan 0 

H.20 LCR Spill Prevention Plan 0 

H.21 LCR Pollution Control Plan 0 TOTAL HUMPBACK CHUB PLAN ACTIONS 0 0 893,000 

CORE MONITORING PROGRAMI Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities 

I.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem - Core Monitoring 505,000 

I.2 Hopi Tribe Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 0 I.3 Hualapai Tribe Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 0 I.4 Navajo Nation Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 0 I.5 Pueblo of Zuni Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 0 I.6 Southern Paiute Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 0 I.7 Terr. Eco. Mon. (Tribal Involvement) I.8 Kanab Ambersnail - Core Monitoring 79,000 

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121

Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 584,000 

J Aquatic Ecosystem Activities 

J.1 Aquatic Foodbase Core Monitoring 248,000 

J.2 Status & Trends of DS Fish - Core Monitoring 870,000 J.3 Status & Trends LF Trout - Core Monitoring 161,000 J.4 IQWP - DS - Core Monitoring 179,000 J.5 IQWP - Lake Powell 210,000 

Aquatic Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 1,668,000 

K Integrated Activities 

K.1 Fine-Sediment Storage - Core Monitoring 459,000 K.2 Streamflow & SS Transport - Core Monitoring 505,000 K.3 Coarse-Grained Inputs - Core Monitoring 135,000 

Integrated Activities Subtotal 0 0 1,099,000 

L Sociocultural & Other 

L.1 Evaluation & Plan for Cultural - Core Monitoring 0 

L.2 Implementation of Recreation PEP reccs. 0 L.3 Implementation of Socioeconomic PEP reccs. 0 

Sociocultural & Other Subtotal 0 

TOTAL CORE MONITORING 0 0 3,351,000 

RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTAL ACTIONSM Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities 

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146

M.1 New Research in Terrestrial Ecosystems 0 M.2 Mapping Holocene Deposits 0 

M.3 Habitat Map & Inventory 48,000 M.4 Cultural Data Base Plan 0 

M.5 Kanab Ambersnail Taxonomy (AMP) 0 M.6 Kanab Ambersnail Taxonomy (USGS Appro) 88,000 M.7 Exp - Kanab Ambersnail Population 10,000 

Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 146,000 

N Aquatic Ecosystem Activities 

N.1 Native & Non-Native Species 0 N.2 Captive Breeding Program 0 

N.3 Population Genetics - HBC 0 

N.4 Exp - Primary Productivity, Carbon Flux 59,000 

N.5 Exp - Temperatures and Habitat Use Monitoring 200,000 

N.6 Exp - Foodbase Impacts of EHF Flows (high-flow impacts) 50,000 

N.7 Exp - Monitoring of Rainbow Trout Adult 0 

N.8 Exp - Distribution of Spawning Redds 50,000 

N.9 Exp - Determination of the Suppression Mechanism 125,000 

N.10 Exp - Food Base Impacts of Fluctuating Flows 60,000 

N.11 Exp - Mechanical Removal of Non-native Fish 586,000 

N.12 Exp - Rainbow Trout Diet Analysis 25,000 

N.13 Exp - Predation of Native Fishes (Humpback Chub) 25,000 

Aquatic Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 1,180,000 

O Integrated Activities 

O.1 Sediment Transport Modeling 231,000 

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169

O.2 Control Network 86,000 O.3 Channel Mapping 0 

O.4 Advanced Modeling of Coarse Grained 0 O.5 Recreation Effects 0 O.6 Exp - Mass Balance of Fine Sediment 420,000 

O.7 Exp - FIST 500,000 

O.8 Exp - Modeling EHF Sandbar Response 62,000 

O.9 Exp - Coarse Sediment and Conceptual Modeling 49,000 

O.10 Exp - Sediment Deposition in Arroyos 25,000 

Integrated Activities Subtotal 0 0 1,373,000 

P Sociocultural & Other 

P.1 Unsolicited Proposals 0 P.2 AMWG, TWG Requests 0 P.3 Tribal Outreach Workshop 45,000 P.4 Cultural Synthesis & Data Report 0 

P.5 Cultural Affiliation Study 0 P.6 APE Study 25,000 P.7 1st Yr Geomorph. Model, Process Study 0 

P.8 Comprehensive Inventory of Campsites 0 P.9 Exp - Impacts to Concessionaires, Anglers 0 

P.10 Exp - Changes in Camping Beaches 25,000 

P.11 Exp - Administrative Support 5,000 

P.12 Exp - Technical Support - Computer 21,000 

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191

P.13 Exp - Technical Support - Survey Equipment 32,000 

Sociocultural & Other Subtotal 0 0 153,000 

TOTAL RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTAL ACTIONS 0 0 2,852,000 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONSQ Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities 

R Aquatic Ecosystem Activities S Integrated Activities T Sociocultural & Other TOTAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 0 0 0 USGS INDIRECT COSTS

USGS Indirect (Bureau Share 11%) (2) 363,000 

USGS Indirect (Cost Center Share 4%) 132,000 

USGS Indirect (Bur. Special Rate 3%) 58,000 USGS Indirect (Special CC Rate 3%) 58,000 USGS Indirect on Appropriations 126,000 

TOTAL USGS INDIRECT COSTS 0 0 737,000 TOTAL ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COSTS 0 0 11,135,000 AVAILABLE FUNDS

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219

USBR & USGS Power Revenues under cap 8,672,600 Carry Over 0 

USGS Appropriations (3) 500,000 

USBR Appropriations (4) 320,000 

NPS Funds (5) 167,000 NPS Appropriations (3) 95,000 

FWS Appropriations (3) 95,000 BIA Appropriations (3) 95,000 BOR Operations & Maintenance (IQWP) 210,000 

TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS 0 0 10,154,600 TOTAL REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS/OTHER FUNDS 0 0 1,482,000 AVAILABLE FUNDS MINUS ESTIMATED COSTS 0 0 8,672,600 

Note: USGS Salary adjustments were made to reflect costs from the most recent salary tables and 

Note: USGS special "pass-through" rate is applied on $3m for contracts and agreements. 

(1) CPI Adjustment

Actual AMP funds received in FY-2003Increased by 3.0 CPIFY-2004 Budget Adjusted for CPI - rounded

(2) Overhead Calculations: 3,000,000

 USGS Overhead (Bureau Share)  USGS Overhead (Cost Center Share) USGS Special Rate (Bureau Share) 58,000 USGS Special Rate (Cost Center Share) 58,000Total Overhead: 611,000

(3) Consists of funds for experimental flows,and tribal participation

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2004 

Budget

Actual 

2004 costs

Approved 

2005 Budget

220221

(4) Consists of funds for experimental flows,temperature control device and tribal participation(5) Funds applied to Bright Angel non-native fish contol

RP-Odd-year budget spreadhseet 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

Reclamation Administration

A Adaptive Management Work GroupA.1 Personnel Costs 155,530 A.2 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 13,390 A.3 Reclamation Travel 15,540 A.4 Facilitation Contract 21,000 A.5 Other 7,000 

Adaptive Management Work Group Subtotal 0 0 212,460 

B Technical Work GroupB.1 Personnel Costs 71,070 

B.2 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 15,450 B.3 Reclamation Travel 15,510 B.4 TWG Chair Reimbursement 21,630 B.5 Other 2,000 

Technical Work Group Subtotal 0 0 125,660 

C Other Reclamation CostsC.1 Compliance Documents 26,780 C.2 Contract Administration 25,750 

Other Reclamation Costs Subtotal 0 0 52,530 Reclamation Administration Subtotal 0 0 390,650 USGS Administration

D Administrative and ManagementD.1 Administrative Operations(1) 638,600 

D.2 Program Planning & Management 282,220 

D.3 AMWG, TWG 46,350 D.4 Independent Reviews 222,000 D.5 Public Outreach 50,000 

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004) 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

31323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758

Adminsistrative and Management Subtotal 0 0 1,239,170 

E Technical Support ServicesE.1 Geographic Information System 160,000 

E.2 Data Base Management System 128,000 E.3 Library 99,000 

E.4 Survey Operations 126,000 

E.5 Systems Administration 242,000 

E.6 Airborne Remote Sensing - Core Monitoring 200,000 

E.7 Web page and product development 100,000 E.8 Logistics Operations

Technical Support Services Subtotal 0 0 1,055,000 USGS Administration Subtotal 0 0 2,294,170 Tribal Consultation

F Cooperative Agreements with TribesF.1 Hopi Tribe 82,400 F.2 Hualapai Tribe 82,400 F.3 Navajo Nation 82,400 F.4 Pueblo of Zuni 82,400 F.5 Southern Paiute 82,400 

Tribal Consultation Subtotal 0 0 412,000 

TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 0 0 3,096,820 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENTG.1 Reclamation Administration 51,500 G.2 Database and GIS 0 

G.3 NPS-GRCA Monitoring Costs 206,000 

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004) 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

59606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586

G.4 NPS-GLCA Monitoring Costs 28,840 G.5 NN & GLCA Treatment Plan and Implementation 100,000 G.6 Whole Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation 250,000 G.7 Zuni Conservation Program Mitigation 10,000 G.8 TCP GIS Documentation 150,000 TOTAL PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 796,340 HUMPBACK CHUB PLAN ACTIONSH.1 Willow Beach Genetics Assessment 0 H.2 Genetics Refugium 100,000 H.3 HBC Genetics Evaluation 0H.4 Feasibility of HBC Augmentation 0H.5 HBC Translocation to Tributaries 50,000 H.6 Temperature Control Device (TCD) 50,000 H.7 Dam Operations Experiment 50,000 H.8 Sediment, Turbidity Augmentation 0 H.9 Scientific, Recreation Impact Assessment 30,000 H.10 Bright Angel Non-native Fish Removal 167,000 H.11 Tributary Non-native Fish Survey, Removal 0 H.12 LCR Confluence NNF Mechanical Removal 0 H.13 Fish Monitoring below Diamond Creek 25,000 H.14 Invasive Species Management Plan 0 H.15 Monitoring Parasites and Diseases 55,000 H.16 Development of a LCR Management Plan 100,000 H.17 Concurrent LCR, Mainstem HBC Pop Est. 200,000 H.188AMWG Outreach Program 0 

H.19 Genetics Management Plan 0 H.20 LCR Spill Prevention Plan 0 

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004) 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

87888990919293949596979899

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114

H.21 LCR Pollution Control Plan 0 TOTAL HUMPBACK CHUB PLAN ACTIONS 0 0 827,000 CORE MONITORING PROGRAMI Terrestrial Ecosystem ActivitiesI.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem - Core Monitoring 170,000 

I.2 Hopi Tribe Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 15,000 I.3 Hualapai Tribe Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 15,000 I.4 Navajo Nation Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 15,000 I.5 Pueblo of Zuni Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 15,000 I.6 Southern Paiute Ecosystem Monitoring/Outreach 15,000 I.7 Terr. Eco. Mon. (Tribal Involvement) 80,000 

I.8 Kanab Ambersnail - Core Monitoring 79,000 

Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 404,000 

J Aquatic Ecosystem ActivitiesJ.1 Aquatic Foodbase Core Monitoring 315,000 

J.2 Status & Trends of DS Fish - Core Monitoring 820,000 

J.3 Status & Trends LF Trout - Core Monitoring 111,000 J.4 IQWP - DS - Core Monitoring 200,000 

J.5 IQWP - Lake Powell 210,000 

Aquatic Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 1,656,000 

K Integrated ActivitiesK.1 Fine-Sediment Storage - Core Monitoring 250,000 K.2 Streamflow & SS Transport - Core Monitoring 300,000 

K.3 Coarse-Grained Inputs - Core Monitoring 0 

Integrated Activities Subtotal 0 0 550,000 

L Sociocultural & OtherL.1 Evaluation & Plan for Cultural - Core Monitoring 40,000 

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004) 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142

L.2 Implementation of Recreation PEP reccs. 40,000 L.3 Implementation of Socioeconomic PEP reccs. 40,000 

Sociocultural & Other Subtotal 120,000 

TOTAL CORE MONITORING 0 0 2,730,000 RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTAL ACTIONSM Terrestrial Ecosystem ActivitiesM.1 New Research in Terrestrial Ecosystems 0 

M.2 Mapping Holocene Deposits 0 

M.3 Habitat Map & Inventory 0 

M.4 Cultural Data Base Plan 0 M.5 Kanab Ambersnail Taxonomy (AMP) 25,000 

M.6 Kanab Ambersnail Taxonomy (USGS Appro) 88,000 M.7 Exp - Kanab Ambersnail Population 10,000 

Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 123,000 

N Aquatic Ecosystem ActivitiesN.1 Native & Non-Native Species 0 N.2 Captive Breeding Program 0 

N.3 Population Genetics - HBC 0 N.4 Exp - Primary Productivity, Carbon Flux 0 N.5 Exp - Temperatures and Habitat Use Monitoring 150,000 N.6 Exp - Foodbase Impacts of EHF Flows (high-flow impacts) 0 N.7 Exp - Monitoring of Rainbow Trout Adult 0 N.8 Exp - Distribution of Spawning Redds 0 N.9 Exp - Determination of the Suppression Mechanism 0 N.10 Exp - Food Base Impacts of Fluctuating Flows 0 N.11 Exp - Mechanical Removal of Non-native Fish 586,000 N.12 Exp - Rainbow Trout Diet Analysis 0 

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004) 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171

N.13 Exp - Predation of Native Fishes (Humpback Chub) 0 

Aquatic Ecosystem Activities Subtotal 0 0 736,000 

O Integrated ActivitiesO.1 Sediment Transport Modeling 0 O.2 Control Network 150,000 

O.3 Channel Mapping 0 

O.4 Advanced Modeling of Coarse Grained 0 

O.5 Recreation Effects 0 

O.6 Exp - Mass Balance of Fine Sediment 0 O.7 Exp - FIST 750,000 

O.8 Exp - Modeling EHF Sandbar Response 0 O.9 Exp - Coarse Sediment and Conceptual Modeling 0 O.10 Exp - Sediment Deposition in Arroyos 0 

Integrated Activities Subtotal 0 0 900,000 

P Sociocultural & OtherP.1 Unsolicited Proposals 0 

P.2 AMWG, TWG Requests 0 

P.3 Tribal Outreach Workshop 0 P.4 Cultural Synthesis & Data Report 0 

P.5 Cultural Affiliation Study 0 

P.6 APE Study 0 P.7 1st Yr Geomorph. Model, Process Study 135,000 

P.8 Comprehensive Inventory of Campsites 0 P.9 Exp - Impacts to Concessionaires, Anglers 0 P.10 Exp - Changes in Camping Beaches 0 P.11 Exp - Administrative Support 5,000 P.12 Exp - Technical Support - Computer 21,000 P.13 Exp - Technical Support - Survey Equipment 32,000 

Sociocultural & Other Subtotal 0 0 193,000 

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004) 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197

TOTAL RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTAL ACTIONS 0 0 1,952,000 MANAGEMENT ACTIONSQ Terrestrial Ecosystem ActivitiesR Aquatic Ecosystem ActivitiesS Integrated ActivitiesT Sociocultural & OtherTOTAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 0 0 0 USGS INDIRECT COSTS

USGS Indirect (Bureau Share 11%) (2) 363,000 

USGS Indirect (Cost Center Share 4%) 132,000 USGS Indirect (Bur. Special Rate 3%) 58,000 

USGS Indirect (Special CC Rate 3%) 58,000 USGS Indirect on Appropriations 70,450 

TOTAL USGS INDIRECT COSTS 0 0 681,450 TOTAL ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COSTS 0 0 10,083,610 AVAILABLE FUNDS

USBR & USGS Power Revenues under cap 8,932,800Carry Over 0USGS Appropriations (3) 500,000

USBR Appropriations (4) 320,000

NPS Funds (5) 167,000NPS Appropriations (3) 95,000

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004) 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget

1

B C DE F 

ID Project Descriptions

Approved 

2003 

Budget

Actual 

2003 costs

Approved 

2004 

Budget

198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221

FWS Appropriations (3) 95,000

BIA Appropriations (3) 95,000BOR Operations & Maintenance (IQWP) 210,000

TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS 0 0 10,414,800TOTAL REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS/OTHER FUNDS 0 0 1,482,000 AVAILABLE FUNDS MINUS ESTIMATED COSTS 0 0 8,932,800

Note: USGS Salary adjustments were made to reflect costs from the most recent salary tables and 

Note: USGS special "pass-through" rate is applied on $3m for contracts and agreements. 

(1) CPI Adjustment

Actual AMP funds received in FY-2003Increased by 3.0 CPIFY-2004 Budget Adjusted for CPI - rounded

(2) Overhead Calculations:

 USGS Overhead (Bureau Share) USGS Overhead (Cost Center Share) USGS Special Rate (Bureau Share) USGS Special Rate (Cost Center Share)Total Overhead:

(3) Consists of funds for experimental flows,and tribal participation(4) Consists of funds for experimental flows,temperature control device and tribal participation(5) Funds applied to Bright Angel non-native fish contol

Even-year budget format (assumed Jan 2004)