1

GCMRC FY 2004 MONITORING AND RESEARCH WORK PLAN

Comments and Proposed Revisions from Technical Work Group 

on the first draft of the 2004 Work Plan dated April 26, 2002 

Comments in red added following 10/22/02 Budget Ad Hoc Conference Call 

General Comments and Recommendations 

Reference (section; pg. #, etc.) TWG Comments/Proposed Revisions GCMRC Recom

(for GCMR

Budget Ad Hoc Group Meeting May 15, 2002 

Pg. 1, Introduction – Geographic and Institutional Scope 

“100,000 cfs” needs to be changed. Substitute with verbatim language from the Strategic Plan. 

Action: Text revised as recomm1 and 3. 

Pg. 33, Chapter 2 – Scientific Activities – Cultural Resource Monitoring 

Where is the cultural monitoring shown? Is not shown in GCMRC budget but is shown under PA Program 

At present, cultural monitoring 

NPS and the funds are part of RCultural Projects in GCMRC buTerrestrial Monitoring or IntegrActivities. In future work plans identified as an explicit part of tthe Narrative. 

Pg. 46, A1 – Terrestrial Logistical Costs 

Questioned the increase from FY02-FY03 Action: Steve will check into th

Budget AHG. This apparent incmostly the result of GCMRC shaccounting for project activities previously budgeted separately costs beginning in FY03. In addactual logistical costs are reflectlength owing in part to these beas part of GCMRC/NPS agreemwhen possible. 

Pg. 67, B3 Status & Trends of Downstream Fish 

Questioned continued $100K increase after 

2003. 

Action: Steve will look into thiBudget AHG. Not sure this is the correct page is actually a decrease in the totamonitoring from FY03 to FY04has been proposed for appropriaand those funds have come from 
2

General Comments and Recommendations 

Reference (section; pg. #, etc.) TWG Comments/Proposed Revisions GCMRC Recom

(for GCMR

over funds in those years. In FYrequested from AMP funds due of this work in long term monitoincrease in GCMRC staff costs costs for this effort in FY02 wer$255,175; SWCA-$161,284; US

Pg. 79, B6 – IWQP Lake Powell 

Why no reduction for Lake Powell Monitoring since GCMRC staff time was moved into downstream water quality. 

Steve is not sure but he expects hasn’t evaluated. Steve said he they get the Lake Powell model(USBR-SLC) needs to extend mAmy a list of action items on 5/*Consider having Amy do a moTWG. Until the IWQP databaseffort are finished the project is level. 

Pg. 82, B8 Captive Breeding Program 

In light of AMWG motion, need to reprogram some FY02 money. 

Action: Steve has asked Kerry information on Hualapai hatcheregarding planning for hatchery the Upper Colorado River Endahas been obtained and some prebegun with AGFD regarding casystem at Bubbling Springs. Thadvanced to FY03 and will be eworkplan unless there is carryov

preparing a proposal too outline concerns w/captive breeding, gryoung fish from LCR, and phys

General Comment Consider combining trips to collect information 

→ improve efficiency. 

Action: Recommendations undGCMRC Logistics Coordinator 

Pg. 137, D8 Experimental Flows 

Need better explanation of proposed experimental flows. 

Action: As recommended additadded to plan. 

Pg. 141, Admin & Procurement costs 

Question about need for GCMRC to “purchase” USGS administrative support? Is this a 

Action: All USGS Cost Centeradministrative support. These c
3

General Comments and Recommendations 

Reference (section; pg. #, etc.) TWG Comments/Proposed Revisions GCMRC Recom

(for GCMR

common practice with other USGS regional offices? 

through an assessment. Becaussubject to USGS assessment, Resupport is paid directly. Regionincludes warranted contracting resources. Note: GCMRC also Support when they were in the B

Pg. 160, F7 Aerial Photography Is it offset somewhere else? 

If Lidar shown in 03 & o4, is it needed every year? Need for Vegetative Monitoring. Could it be done through remote sensing? 

Action: Mike will check into rereport back to the Budget AHG(see attached table: Estimated pdata sets by project.) Mike is in the process of finalizreports are done, he’ll give to ththey will determine their needs. In future work plans the budgetphotography/remote sensing withe cost to WAPA and Power Cthe necessary low flow conditioflights. Action: TWG needs to provide May 30 so revisions can be madJune mailing to AMWG. 

TWG Comments on FY2004 Budget – May 17, 2002 

Pg. 36, Table 2.3 – Cultural Affiliation Study, 

Summing Error -> rounding 

Corrected 

Pg. 57-59 Cultural data base plan, unclear if this will 

develop data management. Protocols. 

Clarification made on pg. 58. 

Pg. 129, D4 Whole concept is vague, re: tribal outreach, 

training -> unequal communication re: tribal view3s as opposed to western science 

Additional detail added on pg. 1

 Cultural Resource synthesis and status report to 

be done in-house (GCMRC) 1⁄4 just part of 

GCMRC responsibility / funds are for workshops to help bring in new data for 

This is correct. 
4

General Comments and Recommendations 

Reference (section; pg. #, etc.) TWG Comments/Proposed Revisions GCMRC Recom

(for GCMR

SCORE Report. 

Pg. 135, D7 Cultural Affiliation Study is poorly conceived, 

tribes not involved in study design 1⁄4 should drop study. 

Please see the revised project de

 Tribes & GCMRC should meet soon to talk 

about this proposal. 

Comment noted and continue to meeting schedule. 

 50-60% of aquatic PEP recommendations 

already completed. 

Comment noted. 

B7 Project already complete. GCMRC is uncertain what this 

whether further response is nece

General Comment INs should be identified in tables, cost to 

accomplish, time to complete. 

GCMRC has resolved not to incAnnual Plan documents until INTWG/AMWG. Only goals and approved by AMWG are includ

General Comment Need to figure out how to incorporate IN 

sequencing into work plan. 

GCMRC has resolved not to incAnnual Plan documents until INTWG/AMWG. Only goals and approved by AMWG are includ

General Comment Program needs to find financial flexibility to 

accomplish research requirements (reduce monitoring $ ?). 

Reduction of monitoring activitresearch is better addressed oncand sequencing completed. 

C2 Need to reprogram $ to install Paria warming 

system. 

This additional monitoring elemexperimental flow research and under CORE monitoring. Reprfunds to support this element to successful completion and testin

 Experimental flows budget should be better 

defined (multi-year). 

Action: Text has been revised wbudget table has been added. Mactivities are not yet clearly defrequire minimum level of fundibudget table. A footnote will be descriptions of the experimenta

recognize that there is a cost or 
5

General Comments and Recommendations 

Reference (section; pg. #, etc.) TWG Comments/Proposed Revisions GCMRC Recom

(for GCMR

Consumers and WAPA of these 

 Need some evaluation of mudsnail w/respect to 

food base sampling 

Addition language regarding the has been added to the Aquatic RKnowledge in Chapter 1 as weldescription for Project B.1. 

June 17, 2002 Revised 10/23/2002