DRAFT - Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program, Triennial 

Budget and Work Plan 

Fiscal Years 2018–2020 

Introduction 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is a science-based process 

for continually improving management practices related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam 

(GCD) by emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation, in 

fulfillment of the consultation and research commitments of the Grand Canyon Protection Act 

(GCPA). The Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) Upper Colorado Region is responsible for 

administering funds for the GCDAMP and providing those funds for monitoring, research, and 

stakeholder involvement. The majority of program funding is derived from hydropower 

revenues; however, supplemental funding is provided by various Department of the Interior 

(DOI) agencies that receive appropriations. These agencies include BOR, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 

The budget and work plan for fiscal years (FY) 2018–2020 was largely developed in 

consideration of the Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP EIS) and on the basis of outcomes 

from previous work plans. Additional consideration was given to meeting commitments outlined 

in: (1) the 2007 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Proposed Adoption of Colorado River 

Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and 

This is an annotated copy of the Reclamation draft with Comments by David Braun, Sound Science LLC

and GCDAMP Executive Coordinator, Science Advisors Program. The comments are intended to

provide feedback to Reclamation, the GCMRC, and the TWG on ways in which the proposed work for

FY18‐20 might be clarified/improved/strengthened. The comments focus on the implications of the

LTEMP EIS/ROD objectives and specific needs highlighted by the EIS/ROD for “learning” through

adaptive management. The comments below are intended for discussion purposes only and are not

for citation, quotation, or wider distribution.

Lake Mead (2007 Opinion); (2) the 2016 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Long-Term 

Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP EIS)(2016 

Opinion); and (3) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Draft 

2016 Programmatic Agreement. 

Preliminary budget estimates in this draft are rounded to the nearest $1,000. A consumer price 

index of 1% was assumed for 2018, 2019, and 2020. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

This budget covers the costs to reimburse AMWG members or alternates to attend regularly 

scheduled AMWG meetings. 

A. Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) Costs 

A.1. AMWG Program Management 

This budget represents BOR staff costs to perform the daily activities required to support the 

Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), the GCDAMP Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) committee. The work includes completing assignments resulting from AMWG 

meetings, consulting with stakeholders on a variety of GCDAMP issues relating to the operation 

of GCD, disseminating pertinent information to the AMWG, preparing and tracking budget 

vouchers. 

accepting forum of discussion. 

Budget 

expenses, and updating BOR’s web pages. BOR also responds to regular requests from the 

General Services Administration (GSA) to complete FACA reports and incorporate meeting and 

member information into the FACA database. BOR also organizes stakeholder travel to AMWG 

meetings, activities that range from preparing travel authorizations to completing travel 

The primary goal is to perform all work associated with the AMWG in a timely and efficient 

manner, while using the funds available as prudently as possible. Secondary goals include 

increasing each stakeholder’s awareness of significant budget and legislative issues related to the 

GCDAMP, improving working relationships with the AMWG members/alternates, finding 

constructive ways to resolve differences, and addressing individual concerns in an open and 

BOR will work to ensure that personnel costs will not exceed what has been proposed in the 

budget unless Federal employee salaries are increased above the consumer price index (CPI). 

BOR staff will provide budget information to the AMWG on a regular basis. Completed work 

products will be of high quality and promptly distributed to AMWG members/alternates and 

interested parties. Budget reports will be presented in a format conducive to AMWG needs. 

FY18 = $220,000 FY19 = $222,000 FY20 = $224,000 

Reimbursing AMWG members or alternates for travel expenses is done to encourage their 

attendance at all meetings. Many members live outside of Phoenix or Flagstaff Arizona, where 

meetings are often held. As a result, many members must incur travel costs. Having BOR 

provide reimbursement to AMWG members or alternates for air travel or mileage for the use of 

private vehicles, as well as other related travel costs such as hotel, per diem, and rental car 

increases opportunities for members to participate in a variety of AMWG assignments. Because 

BOR can purchase airline tickets at the Federal Government rate, there are additional cost 

savings to the program. 

The GCDAMP benefits from having all AMWG members participating in regularly 

scheduled meetings. As a collective body, they address and resolve concerns associated with the 

operation of GCD and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior for continued 

science efforts performed below the GCD. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget FY18= $20,000 FY19 = $20,000 FY20 = $20,000 

A.3. AMWG Reclamation Travel 

This budget supports travel expenses BOR staff incur to attend AMWG and ad hoc group 

meetings. The primary goal is for BOR staff to be able to travel to meetings and participate in 

completing AMWG/TWG assignments. By doing so, the program benefits from greater 

interaction between BOR staff and GCDAMP members, and opportunities for BOR staff to 

obtain the latest results from monitoring and research being conducted by the GCDAMP. 

BOR staff will be involved with AMWG/TWG members in completing work assignments 

and resolving issues that affect the GCDAMP. They will develop better working relationships 

with all involved and work toward consensus with AMWG members on a variety of issues. 

Budget FY18 = $20,000 FY19 = $20,000 FY20 = $20,000 

A.4. AMWG Facilitation Contract 

This budget supports a facilitator who is under contract to BOR to provide facilitations 

services for AMWG meetings. This person may also assist AMWG ad hoc groups or TWG in 

completing assignments. 

The facilitator’s primary responsibility is to keep the AMWG meetings organized and help 

the members reach consensus on important issues. The facilitator will create an atmosphere in 

which the members and other participants at AMWG meetings feel comfortable expressing their 

individual viewpoints. In addition the facilitator assists Reclamation in coordinating meetings, 

developing agenda's, and provides follow up after meetings that include action items and 

meeting minutes. 

Budget FY18= $90,000 FY19 = $91,000 FY20 = $92,000 

A.5. Public Outreach 

A.5.1 Reclamation Public Affairs and Public Outreach Ad Hoc 

Group 

This budget covers the expenses for BOR staff and the Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

(POAHG) to develop materials for the GCDAMP public outreach efforts. This item includes 

BOR public affairs staff attendance at AMWG meetings. 

BOR public affairs staff and the POAHG, as appropriate, will work to develop materials to 

inform and educate the public on the goals and administration of the GCDAMP. They will keep 

other GCDAMP members advised of progress and expenditures. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The GCDAMP was initiated in 1996 and despite consistent record documentation and 

retention, the administrative portion of the program has not been synthesized in a manner that 

allows an easy review of the progression of ideas, discussion topics, research, recommendations, 

decisions and achievements over time. New members of TWG and AMWG and other interested 

parties, also need concise, accessible orientation materials that provide an overview of 

GCDAMP, the stakeholders, and past actions the program has taken. 

The Administrative History Project implements goals of the Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

by providing a better understanding of the history of the GCDAMP, its work, and participants. 

The project, which began in FY2017, is anticipated to continue through FY2021, and undertake 

the following: 

 Develop oral histories and interviews with AMP historical figures 

 Create an annotated bibliography for program related literature 

 Create a website and library database for information archival and retrieval 

 Create a chronological program overview including participants 

 Develop a new participant’s handbook for the AMP. 

Budget FY18 = $50,000 FY19 = $50,000 FY120 = $50,000 

Total Public Outreach Budget FY18 = $75,000 FY19 = $75,000 FY20 = 

$76,000 

A.6. AMWG Other 

Products may include fact sheets, web site information, tribal outreach materials, video Broll, special events, conference participation, and other pertinent means of advising the public 

and program members on the achievements of the GCDAMP. 

Budget FY18= $25,000 FY19 = $25,000 FY20 = $26,000 

A.5.2 Administrative History Project 

This budget represents some of the other “miscellaneous” expenses incurred in operation of 

the AMWG, including the following expenses: 

 Overnight mailings of AMWG meeting packets 

 Copying of reports 

 Purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, software upgrades for 

GCDAMP Web site posting, etc.) 

 Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines). 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

to attend regularly scheduled TWG meetings. 

In addition to the expenses noted above, training courses are often required for staff to keep 

current on environmental issues, FACA changes, computer technology improvements, etc. The 

primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items as much as possible. By doing so, more money 

can be applied to science and research. Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to 

reduce the administrative portion of the GCDAMP budget. 

Budget FY18 = $15,000 FY19 = $15,000 FY20 = $15,000 

B. Technical Work Group (TWG) Costs 

This budget represents BOR staff costs to perform the daily activities required to support the 

TWG, a subgroup of the AMWG. The work includes completing assignments resulting from 

TWG meetings, consulting with stakeholders on a variety of GCDAMP issues relating to the 

operation of GCD, disseminating pertinent information to TWG members, preparing and 

tracking budget expenses, and updating the Web pages BOR maintains for the program. BOR 

also completes all stakeholder travel activities, which range from preparing travel authorizations 

Personnel costs will not exceed what has been proposed in the budget unless Federal 

employee salaries are increased above the CPI. BOR staff will provide budget information to the 

TWG on a regular basis. Completed work products will be promptly distributed to TWG 

members/alternates and interested parties. 

B.1. TWG Program Management 

to completing travel vouchers. 

Budget FY18 = $120,000 FY19 = $121,000 FY20 = $122,000 

This budget provides funds to reimburse TWG members or alternates for expenses incurred 

Reimbursing TWG members or alternates for travel expenses is done to encourage their 

attendance at all meetings. By providing reimbursement to TWG members or alternates for air 

travel or mileage for the use of private vehicles, as well as other related travel costs such as hotel, 

per diem, and rental car increases opportunities for members to participate in a variety of TWG 

assignments. Because BOR can purchase airline tickets at the Federal Government rate, there are 

additional cost savings to the program. 

The GCDAMP will benefit from having all the TWG members participate in regularly 

scheduled meetings. As a collective body, TWG members address and resolve concerns 

associated with the operation of GCD and make recommendations to the AMWG for continued 

research. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GCDAMP. The chairperson will follow up on action items and make assignments as necessary 

to accomplish TWG objectives. 

In the event that the TWG chair salary is covered through funding outside the GCDAMP, 

these funds can be used by BOR for TWG-related administrative purposes or to cover facilitation 

and support for TWG-related issues. Part, or all, of this budget may be used for facilitation 

Budget FY18 = $25,000 FY19 = $25,000 FY20 = $26,000 

B.3. TWG Reclamation Travel 

This budget covers travel expenses that BOR staff will incur to prepare for and attend TWG 

meetings and ad hoc group meetings resulting from AMWG/TWG assignments. The primary 

goal is for BOR staff to be able to travel to meetings and participate in completing AMWG/TWG 

assignments. BOR staff will continue to be involved in meeting with AMWG/TWG members to 

complete work assignments and resolve issues that affect the operation of GCD. They will 

develop better working relationships with all involved and work toward consensus on a variety 

of GCDAMP issues. 

Budget FY15 = $20,000 FY16 = $20,000 FY17 = $20,000 

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation 

This budget supports a person who is under contract to BOR to serve as the chairperson for 

the TWG. This person may also assist AMWG/TWG ad hoc groups in completing assignments. 

The chairperson’s primary responsibility is to conduct regularly scheduled TWG meetings. 

The chairperson also participates in ad hoc group assignments and works closely with BOR and 

GCMRC staff in setting meeting agendas. The chairperson follows up on TWG and ad hoc group 

assignments and ensures that information is shared with the members and alternates in a timely 

manner. 

The chairperson creates an atmosphere in which the members and other participants at TWG 

meetings feel comfortable expressing their individual viewpoints. The chairperson will bring the 

TWG members to consensus on sensitive issues with the ultimate goal of making 

recommendations to the AMWG that incorporate the best scientific information available to the 

services for TWG meetings, support for TWG ad hoc groups, or support completing TWG 

assignments. 

Budget FY15 = $35,000 FY16 = $35,000 FY17 = $36,000 

B.5. TWG Other 

This budget represents some of the other “miscellaneous” expenses incurred in support of the 

TWG, including the following expenses: 

 Overnight mailings of TWG meeting packets 

 Copying of reports 

6 
 

 

 

 

 Purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, etc.)
 

 Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

The primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items as much as possible. By doing so, 

more money can be spent on science and research. Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in 

an effort to keep within the GCDAMP budget. 

Budget FY18 = $15,000 FY19 = $15,000 FY20 = $15,000 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Program Administration, ESA Compliance, and 

Management Actions 

C.1. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting 

This budget item provides funding to support the Grand Canyon National Park permitting of 

research and monitoring projects conducted under the GCDAMP. Grand Canyon National Park 

employs a permitting specialist and other staff who review all proposals for projects to be 

completed in the park and to determine NEPA, ESA and NHPA compliance requirements. The 

program provides these funds under the auspices of the GCDAMP to offset the park’s 

administrative burden in providing permitting services. The primary goal is to ensure that 

projects conducted under the GCDAMP are reviewed and permitted by the NPS. Projects 

conducted under the GCDAMP will receive permits from the NPS in a timely manner. 

Budget FY18 = $138,000 FY19= $139,000 FY20 = $141,000 

C.2. Contract Administration 

This budget covers the expenses for BOR acquisitions and contracting staff to prepare and 

execute contracts associated with the GCDAMP. Specifically, these contracts include GCMRC 

science and monitoring, NPS monitoring and permitting, AMWG facilitation, TWG chairperson 

reimbursement, Science Advisors program, Tribal participation and resource monitoring, 

Administrative History, and programmatic agreement (PA) contract work. 

BOR contract specialists will accurately apply funds spent on individual contracts to ensure 

costs do not exceed contract limits. They will keep the BOR Environmental Resources Division 

(ERD) contracting technical representative informed as to those charges so accurate reporting 

can be made to both AMWG and TWG members. 

BOR contracting technical representatives will ensure that individual contractors are 

fulfilling the requirements of their contracts. They will maintain accurate records of payments 

made against the contracts and will keep BOR staff informed of discrepancies or concerns. Work 

will be completed on time and within the limits of the contract. 

Budget FY18 = $100,000 FY19 = $101,000 FY20 = $102,000 

C.3. Science Advisor Program 

This budget provides funding to support Science Advisors Program. The purpose of the 

Science Advisors Program is to periodically conduct reviews on GCDAMP resource-specific 

monitoring and research programs, and carry out other advisory tasks as requested by the 

AMWG. The Science Advisers provide recommendations to the AMWG and the GCMRC 

regarding monitoring, priorities, integration, and management of natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam and provide decision support to 

participating agencies and stakeholders. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 In the absence of this standing panel, the Executive Coordinator’s office will 

handle the listed activities internally. Est. alternative cost: $25,000/year + 

CPI. 

3. Coordinate and/or conduct one external review per FY focused on a topic for 

which the GCMRC, TWG, and/or AMWG need(s) independent review and 

recommendations. The Executive Coordinator will identify up to five potential panel topics 

for the FY18-20 work plan, and will organize reviews of three of these five over the course 

of these three years, with the topic for FY18 fixed in the triennial work plan and the other 

two to be selected based on evolving priorities for successive years. Est. cost: $55,000/year + 

CPI. 

4. Maintain routine interactions with the GCMRC, TWG, and AMWG to maintain 

full currency in the actions, knowledge systems, and emerging ideas of the GCDAMP to 

guide SAP and Executive Coordinator support of the AMP. This task includes Executive 

Coordinator attendance at a reasonable number of meetings in person and the rest via web 

link. Est. cost: $40,000/year + CPI. 

5. Maintain routine program administration, including regular communications with 

Reclamation, financial management, and archiving of records. Est. cost: $20,000/year + CPI. 

Budget FY18 = $205,000 

Preliminary tasks identified for the FY2018-2020 work plan are: 

1. Support and guide annual Knowledge Assessment process, updating methods 

while maintaining methodological and data continuity, and integrating and digesting the 

results in close coordination with TWG and GCMRC. Est. cost: $45,000/year + CPI. 

2. Establish and manage a standing panel of six year-round science advisors, to: (a) 

review the Knowledge Assessment, Annual Reporting, and annual reports to provide 

feedback to the TWG and GCMRC on annual work plans and the next (FY21-23) triennial 

work plan; and (b) provide recommendations for organizing and recruiting experts for 

independent external reviews (see below). Est. cost: $45,000/year + CPI. 

 FY19 = $207,000 FY20 = $209,000 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget FY18 =$0 FY19 = $40,000 FY20 = $0 

C.5. Experimental Management Fund 

This budget item reserves funds for conducting experiments or management actions under 

the GCDAMP. The funds will be available to conduct experiments or management actions when 

conditions are appropriate. If the funds are not needed in a given year, they will be transferred to 

the Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund. [Note: Reclamation will work with DOI 

agencies, the BAHG and TWG to identify example projects that may be appropriate for the 

Experimental and Management Fund prior to the next draft of this budget and work plan.] 

Budget FY18 =$500,000 FY19 = $505,000 FY20 = $510,000 

C.6. Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 

This budget item tracks the native fish conservation contingency fund. The goal of this 

budget item is to ensure that funds are available for native fish conservation actions or nonnative 

fish control the event this conservation action is needed for endangered humpback chub. This is 

a fund consisting of GCDAMP carryover funds from prior years and serves to ensure that funds 

are available for the conservation actions should the need arise. This fund will implement 

conservation actions as defined in the 2007 and 2016 Opinions. Should excess funds become 

available beyond those needed for conservation actions, these funds could be expended on other 

research, monitoring, and management actions that help conserve native fish. This fund will be 

incrementally increased with future carryover dollars, when available. 

C.4. Integrated GCDAMP Stakeholder River Trip 

The objective of this project is to provide an opportunity for tribal representatives and 

GCDAMP stakeholders to articulate their respective values, concerns and issues in a field 

situation. The river trip also provides the opportunity for AMWG members to visit the canyon 

and gain a greater understanding of GCDAMP resources and issues. The river trip will be 

agenda-driven and is intended to provide an opportunity for GCDAMP stakeholders to share 

perspectives about their values and positions respective to the Grand Canyon and the Colorado 

River. It is expected that one trip every 2 or 3 years is the appropriate frequency. 

Carryover FY16 carryover = $1,060,000 FY17 anticipated carryover = [to be 

filled in at a later date] 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.7. Experimental Vegetation Treatment 

As described in the LTEMP Record of Decision, experimental riparian vegetation treatment is included as 

mitigation for dam operations within the Colorado River Ecosystem. Vegetation treatment actions on NPS 

managed lands will be implemented by NPS consistent with NPS Management Policies (NPS 2006) and 

will occur only within the CRE in areas that are influenced by dam operations. The NPS will work with 

tribal partners and GCMRC to experimentally implement and evaluate a number of vegetation control and 

native replanting activities on the riparian vegetation within the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand 

Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and the Hualapai reservation. These 

The 3-year experimental vegetation treatment project is part of implementation of LTEMP ROD to 

activities would include ongoing monitoring and removal of selected nonnative plants, species in the 

corridor, systematic removal of nonnative vegetation at targeted sites, and native replanting at targeted 

sites and subreaches, which may include complete removal of tamarisk (both live and dead) and 

revegetation with native vegetation. Treatments fall into two broad categories, including the control of 

nonnative plant species and revegetation with native plant species. 

mitigate for declines in New High Water Zone riparian vegetation due to dam operations. This project has 

5 major objectives: 

vegetation and wildlife. 

1. Control exotic plants - The focus would be on the treatment of priority invasive 

exotic plants present due to dam operations that have significant and proven effects on native 

2. Restore native riparian plants - Native plant species would be planted in high priority 

areas, including where extensive tamarisk mortality may adversely impact native wildlife 

habitat and campsite functionality. 

3. Develop a long-term strategy to monitor the river corridor for new highly invasive 

exotic riparian species that would be favored by dam operations. 

4. Control campsite vegetation encroachment – Strategic removal of both native (e.g. 

arrowweed) and non-native species (e.g. Russian thistle and puncture vine) would occur at 

priority sites where recreational camping area has been lost to encroachment. 

5. Protect archaeological sites - Priority sites would be chosen where GCMRC research 

has provided evidence of past wind transport of sand uphill near known or potential cultural 

sites; native and non-native vegetation would be removed at these sites to facilitate future wind 

transport which would be monitored within an adaptive management framework. 

The project area is from Glen Canyon dam to Pearce Ferry. Project partners are the National Park Service, 

associated tribes, GCMRC, Bureau of Reclamation, youth corps and volunteers. 

Project costs include project coordination, planning and administration costs (including an annual 

coordination and planning meeting for NPS, GCMRC and tribes, GCMRC veg data processing and transfer 

to NPS), personnel costs (NPS seasonal and term biological technicians for field work, data entry and 

reporting, NPS term archeologist for on-site field work, tribal staff for on-site field work, GIS and data 

staff support), supplies (tools and herbicides, plant propagation, fuel for boat travel), and contracts, 

11 

Commented [DPB1]: This is a matter identified in the GCMRC 

draft work plan that needs significant coordination among the 

GCMRC, Reclamation, NPS, and tribes to determine what learning 

needs to emerge from this experimental project, to support adaptive 

management under AMP oversight. The five listed objectives do not 

indicate what options may need to be compared, to provide guidance 

to the AMP. For example, what are the desired outcomes from 

planting native vegetation? What species, in what combinations? 

Some combinations might favor botanical diversity, or favor native 

wildlife, or favor desirable characteristics for camping; and these 

outcomes might be mutually exclusive. Similarly, how will the 

project determine the right balance between controlling vegetation 

encroachment and enhancing riparian ecological outcomes? These 

are matters that need to be decided not just among the cooperating 

parties but by the larger stakeholder community, since the decisions 

potentially will affect several other LTEMP ROD objectives, 

including archaeological and cultural resources, recreational 

experience, natural processes, and tribal values. 

Commented [DPB2]: For example, there appears to be a need 

here to establish criteria for triggering such removal and determining 

where/over what area it needs to take place in balance with other 

objectives. There also may be a need to compare alternatives 

removal methods. These are matters that need to be incorporated 

into the “learning” process for this experiment as early as possible, 

to support adaptive management. 

Commented [DPB3]: I would recommend that, before any 

planning can take place for actual vegetation management actions, a 

larger plan needs to be put into place establishing the goals and 

design of the experiment based on what needs to be learned from the 

perspective of the AMP under the LTEMP ROD. The results of the 

2017 Knowledge Assessment suggest large gaps in knowledge and 

large areas of uncertainty, including some that result from unclear 

objectives. The immediacy of the need for coordination here is why 

the SAP list of proposed review topics (not included in the present 

abstract) included conducting a workshop on riparian vegetation 

management for the CRE under the AMP, to establish overarching 

goals, learning needs, etc. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the 2016 LTEMP EIS BO, Reclamation committed to explore the efficacy of a temperature 

control device, or methods, at Glen Canyon Dam to respond to potential extremes in 

hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that could result in nonnative fish 

establishment. The includes evaluations of current and evolving technological advances that 

could provide for warming and cooling the river in both high- and low-flow discharge scenarios, 

and high and low reservoir levels. This project would involve the gathering of information, 

documentation and evaluation of existing and emerging methods and technologies that may be 

considered for further feasibility and risk analysis at a later date. 

Budget FY18 =$0 FY19 = $0 FY20 = $100,000 

agreements and river support (cooperative agreement for greenhouse operation costs, river support for field 

work, youth crew agreement to support field work). 

Budget FY18 =$210,000 FY19 = $273,000 FY20 = $294,000 

C.8 Evaluation of means to prevent fish passage through 

GCD 

feasibility analysis at a later date. 

In the 2016 LTEMP EIS BO, Reclamation committed to evaluate means of preventing the 

passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam. Potential options to 

minimize or eliminate passage through the turbine or bypass intakes, or minimize survival of 

nonnative fish that pass through the dam would be assessed. While feasible options may not 

currently exist, technology may be developed later in the LTEMP period that could help achieve 

this goal. This project would involve the gathering of information, documentation and 

evaluation of existing and emerging methods and technologies that may be considered for further 

Budget FY18 =$0 FY19 = $100,000 FY20 = $0 

C.9 Evaluation of temperature control methods at GCD 

C.10 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yuma Ridgway’s 

Rail Surveys 

In the 2016 LTEMP EIS BO, Reclamation committed to monitoring the two endangered birds 

consulted on in the BO: the Yuma Ridgway’s rail and the southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Reclamation will partially assist in funding National Park Service staff in conducting Yuma 

Ridgway’s rail surveys once every three years and conduct southwestern willow flycatcher 

12 

Commented [DPB4]: This section would benefit from a 

discussion of how Reclamation intends to carry out the review of 

potential options. Will this be an external contract, an internal 

Reclamation review, or a task assigned to one of the AMP member 

agencies; and would there be a ‘steering committee’ to help guide 

the effort? Would the review of options need to consider how 

various options might be affected by varying lake elevation? 

Commented [DPB5]: This section, too, would benefit from a 

discussion of how Reclamation intends to carry out the review of 

potential options. Will this be an external contract, an internal 

Reclamation review, a SAP review (as was done during the last 

cycle of discussions about TCDs), or a task assigned to one of the 

AMP member agencies; and would there be a ‘steering committee’ 

to help guide the effort? Presumably any discussion about TCDs 

would also need to take into account the way(s) in which such a 

device would be affected by varying lake elevation and lake thermal 

structure. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

surveys once every two years for the duration of the LTEMP. These monitoring trips will be 

coordinated and combined with existing trips. Reporting and documentation will be provided to 

Reclamation by NPS staff certified to survey nesting birds. Both birds would be surveyed in 

2018, while only the Southwest willow flycatcher would be surveyed in 2020. 

Budget FY18 =$17,000 FY19 = $0 FY20 = $10,000 

Commented [DPB6]: Crucial questions might be how these 

birds use (or do not use) riparian vegetation of the composition and 

structure present or potentially to become established in the CRE, 

and possibilities for their becoming more widely established along 

the CRE. The findings would bear on decisions vis-à-vis riparian 

vegetation management. On a larger scale, too, the bird surveys 

should be considered part of a growing body of investigations 

concerning T/E species and other native wildlife along the CRE 

other than the T/E fishes, and the ways that the river, dam 

operations, and other LTEMP actions may affect the larger CRE 

ecosystem – all topics within the AMP scope. 

An additional question here: Is there a way to engage citizen science 

and the presence of other monitoring teams in the effort to assess 

flycatcher, rail and other avian activity along the CRE? Would it be 

useful if temporary audio stations could be put in place when 

monitoring teams are camped for other activities or by boating 

guides, to collect audio data for the durations of those camping 

visits? 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. Cultural Resources Program 

D.1. Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs 

This budget funds the salary and travel expenses of BOR cultural resources staff to administer 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance for the GCDAMP, which includes 

the Section 106 compliance, documentation for the Determination of Eligibility, contracting and 

reviewing of proposals and reports, annual cultural resources reporting and meeting, costs 

associated with maintaining the grants for tribal participation in the GCDAMP and tribal 

contracts to implement tribal monitoring protocols, general consultations, and Historic 

Preservation Plan development. This also includes the implementation of the new 2017 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) for Glen Canyon Dam Operations, the 2012 Memoranda of 

Agreement (MOA) documents for Non-native Fish Control, and the HFE Protocol, as they may 

be amended. The project goals and objectives are: 

 Management of five tribal grants from both appropriated funds for participation in the 

GCDAMP and power revenues to provide implementation of tribal monitoring protocols. 

 Management of the monitoring and mitigation of at-risk historic properties and other 

related projects associated with implementation of NHPA compliance agreements for the 

operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 

 Reclamation cultural resource personnel attending, as needed, TWG and AMWG 

meetings, Cultural Ad Hoc Group meetings, and conducting meetings required by the 

2017 PA and revised 2012 MOAs. 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project, which also 

ensures accountability for the tribal grants and contracts and appropriate use of both appropriated 

dollars and power revenues. The budget is approximately one full time employee, including DOI 

overhead (35%). 

Budget FY18 = $150,000 FY19 = $151,000 FY20 = $153,000 

D.2. Cultural Resources Program Contractor Support to 

Reclamation 

This budget item is for contracted assistance to Reclamation for the development of the Historic 

Preservation Plan and ensuring GCDAMP compliance with Section 106. Additional tasks 

include coordinating and attending the annual PA implementation meeting, drafting the annual 

report. The contractor may solicit GCDAMP expertise and input on cultural resources issues to 

support the fulfillment of these tasks. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget FY18 = $150,000 FY19 = $75,000 FY20 = $76,000 

Glen Canyon Reach with Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Tribe, Southern Paiute 

Consortium, and Pueblo of Zuni. This consultation helps formulate a plan for ethnographic data 

collection to assist with mitigation of sites. 

To project meets objectives of cultural resources protection on lands administered by Glen 

Canyon NRA using adaptive management processes for the NPS and BOR to achieve specific 

goals for identification, monitoring, documentation and mitigation actions with regard to cultural 

resources in the Glen Canyon reach during fiscal years 2018-2020. 

	 Assist in the administration and implementation of the PA. Assist with Reclamation’s 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. 

	 Assist with the development of the Historic Preservation Plan 

Administrative support to Reclamation with ensuring compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is 

the primary outcome of this project Funding is greater in Year 1 of the work plan to cover initial 

costs of Historic Preservation Plan development. 

D.3. Cultural Resources Monitoring – Glen Canyon (NPS) 

Long-term monitoring of cultural resources in the Glen Canyon Reach is required under both 

Section 106 of NHPA and the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Implementation of long-term 

monitoring in the Glen Canyon reach will be conducted by National Park Service (NPS) through 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA) and coordinated with other NPS entities, 

Reclamation, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), Tribes, and other 

stakeholders. 

This project will maintain a program of long-term monitoring in the Glen Canyon reach that 

meets the updated requirements of the 2017 PA for LTEMP and the associated Historic 

Preservation Plan. It will support the evaluation and documentation of effects to historic 

properties and inform the development of any mitigation measures identified to protect historic 

properties from documented adverse effects of dam operations. NPS would work with 

Reclamation to identify mitigation measures for any documented adverse effects at specific sites 

in Glen Canyon NRA. NPS will continue consultation concerning tribal values associated with 

Project Goals and Objectives 

	 Support Reclamation’s Section 106 compliance responsibilities 

	 Monitoring and data collection in support of evaluation of impacts to historic properties. 

	 Documentation of effects to historic properties. 

	 Work with Reclamation to identify mitigation measures for any documented adverse 

effects at specific sites in Glen Canyon NRA 

15 
 

 

 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. The ultimate 

goal of the long-term monitoring program is to monitor and document effects to historic 

properties in the Glen Canyon reach. The data will be useful for identifying mitigation measures 

to remediate any sites in the Glen Canyon reach damaged by the operations of Glen Canyon 

Dam. 

Budget FY18 = $34,000 FY19 = $26,000 FY20 = $26,000 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Support Reclamation’s Section 106 compliance responsibilities 

 Conduct field assessments to update condition and impact data using existing monitoring 

protocols and subsequent updates as defined in the Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) 

 Provide Reclamation site data to support the development and implementation of the HPP 

 Review and update site information and associated treatment recommendations contained 

within Reclamation’s 2007 Geoarchaeological Investigations and Treatment Plan 

 Coordinate with resource managers to design and implement appropriate management 

actions 

 Streamline data collection and data mining for cultural resources along the river corridor 

and report annually to Reclamation on activities and findings 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. The ultimate 

goal of the long-term monitoring program is to collect data useful for identifying mitigation 

measures to remediate sites damaged by the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. 

Budget FY18 = $48,000 FY19 = $45,000 

D.3. Cultural Resources Monitoring – Grand Canyon (NPS) 

The NPS, Grand Canyon will conduct data review, field work, data entry, analysis and report 

preparation. Field staff will utilize the existing 2016 Cultural Resource Management protocol 

and associated SOPs for all activities. Protocols will be used to streamline field activities. 

Additional data collection related to geospatial references and condition of archaeological sites 

will be gathered using a hardened field computer or hand-held unit and imported directly into the 

Cultural Resource geodatabase. 

FY20 = $45,000 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D.5. Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) Documentation for 

Hualapai, Navajo and Paiute Tribes 

Associated Values studies and projects related to Traditional Ecological Knowledge are based on 

TCP documentation. Tribal monitoring projects will also document the relationship with TCPs. 

This project provides funding to assist in the documentation of TCPs for Hualapai, Navajo and 

Paiute Tribes. The Pueblo of Zuni and the Hopi Tribe may require updates to their existing 

TCPs, as well. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Documentation of TCPs for Hualapai, Navajo and Paiute Tribes. 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. The specific 

project outcome is the documentation of TCPs for the Hualapai, Navajo and Paiute tribes and 

possible updates to the TCPs for the Hopi Tribe and the Pueblo of Zuni. 

Budget FY18 = $30,000 FY19 = $­ FY20 = $­

D.6. Tribal Associated Values Studies 

Reclamation has identified that the implementation of associated values studies under Section 

106, NHPA, is a mitigation measure or may identify mitigation strategies for any potential 

adverse effect to the character of historic properties as a result of the Glen Canyon Dam 

operations. Associated Values Studies are based on TCP documentation. Zuni completed an 

associated values study utilizing videography. FY2018 may begin an associated values study 

with the Hopi. 

When historic properties are valued for their association with important historical events and 

Reclamation has identified the need to document individual Tribal Traditional Cultural 

Properties (TCPs) in order to treat the TCPs as historic properties under Section 106 of NHPA. 

Under previous contracts, Reclamation initiated the documentation process with the five AMWG 

tribes. The Hopi Tribe and the Pueblo of Zuni have completed TCP documentation. The 

Hualapai, Navajo and Paiute Tribes do not have documented TCPs. Future projects including 

important people, mitigation may be accomplished by documenting those associations. An 

example of a past GCDAMP associative value project is the Zuni associative values project 

which mitigates for losses of associative values through the production of a film that documents 

the Zuni relationship to Grand Canyon. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

	 Complete Associated Values studies as a method of mitigation or to offer mitigation 

strategies for any potential adverse effects that may be identified. 

18 

Commented [DPB7]: The documentation of the TCPs will 

include information on the traditional ways in which the individual 

tribes value this landscape, specific features and places in that 

landscape, the life-forms and natural processes present, the activities 

tribal members may need to carry out in the landscape, and the ways 

that all people use and move through the landscape. This 

documentation necessarily will establish criteria for tracking Section 

106 compliance with the TCP designations. At the same time, the 

kinds of information needed to inform the TCP nominations are also 

precisely the kinds of information that the GCMRC Project J.2 seeks 

to document. Additionally, the LTEMP EIS and ROD include the 

specific objective to “[m]aintain the diverse values and resources of 

traditionally associated Tribes along the Colorado River corridor 

through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons.” The AMP cannot carry 

out this objective, nor can it assess the impacts of LTEMP actions on 

this objective, as also required by the ROD, without the specific 

information on valued conditions noted above. Implementation of 

the LTEMP therefore requires an immediate effort to establish a set 

of explicit criteria by which the tribes and the AMP can evaluate the 

impacts of LTEMP actions, based on the traditional values that will 

be articulated through the TCP process and GCMRC Project J.2. 

Without these criteria, and efforts to record and report on their status 

as required under Section 106, the AMP will not have the 

information it needs. This all suggests a significant and presumably 

immediate AMP need for collaboration and integration among 

several efforts, including Project J.2, the TCP nominations, AMP 

and Interior efforts to establish the monitoring plans needed for 

implementation of the LTEMP ROD, and implementation of 

Reclamation Projects D2-D8. This collaborative effort will take 

time, however, since the AMP does not have a history of experience 

formally tracking management criteria related to traditional tribal 

values. Such experience is likely in short supply nationally, too, 

although the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and 

presumably other groups have developed guidance on how one 

might proceed, and the TCP nominations necessarily will present 

substantial information on the subject. Given the state of flux in all 

of this, it may take a little time and experimentation to arrive at a 

stable program, beginning with stronger integration of the efforts 

noted in this Comment. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. The ultimate 

goal is the mitigation of adverse effects or to offer mitigation strategies for any potential adverse 

effect. 

Budget FY18 = $130,000 FY19 = $131,000 FY20 = $133,000 

D.7. Cultural Sensitivity Training Development 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. The ultimate 

goal is to develop a training course for GCDAMP funded researchers and other interested 

GCDAMP participants. 

This project is to fund tribal expertise in the development of a GCDAMP cultural sensitivity 

training. Native American tribes possess special expertise in religious and cultural significance. 

It is recognized that this expertise is the outcome of extensive traditional learning and training 

that certain Native individuals go through to receive tribal recognition as an initiated individual, 

a medicine man, or a spiritual leader. Reclamation acknowledges and respects traditional 

knowledge and traditional education systems and recognizes that the inclusion of individuals 

with this knowledge is a vital component for the identification, evaluation, analysis, recording, 

treatment, monitoring or disposition of historic properties. Because not every researcher within 

the GCDAMP is able to undergo the intense training that certain Native individuals complete, 

this project will fund those experts with such expertise to 1) identify key aspects of religious and 

cultural significance; 2) develop training methods to pass this information on, and 3) to 

participate in the cultural sensitivity training. 

This training will be developed and then revised every third year. Information from each of the 

five GCDAMP associated tribes will be incorporated into this training and the training will be 

developed by tribal members, incorporating information from each of the five GCDAMP 

associated tribes. Up to $10,000 will be provided to experts from each of the five GCDAMP 

associated tribes for expertise and contribution to the cultural sensitivity training. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Produce a Cultural Sensitivity Training Program for use by all researchers working 

within the GCDAMP. 

Budget FY18 = $50,000 FY19 = $- FY20 = $­

D.8. Cultural Sensitivity Training Video 

19 

Commented [DPB8]: It will be important to coordinate this vital 

training program with the efforts discussed in the preceding 

Comment field. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Following the development of the cultural sensitivity training identified in project D.8, a video or 

on-line version of the training will be developed and circulated to allow the cultural sensitivity 

training to be more accessible for all researchers. This project includes the development of audio 

and visual elements of the training as well as other training materials. This project will be 

implemented by a contractor. Coordination with the tribal experts identified in D.8 and the 

product is critical to the success of this project. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Produce a Cultural Sensitivity Training video for use by all researchers working within 

the GCDAMP. 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. 

Budget FY18 = $25,000 FY19 = $25,000 FY20 = $­

D.10. Collective Summary of Past Section 106 Activities in

the GCDAMP 

As a component of the HPP, a collective summary, or synthesis, of all past monitoring and 

mitigation activities completed under previous Section 106 projects, will be developed. This 

synthesis will include a management summary table with identified historic properties located 

within the PA’s Area of Potential Effects, a summary of impacts to each historic property, a 

summary of cumulative effects, previous actions taken at each property, and long-term 

management goals. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Produce a Section 106 collective summary, or synthesis, of all past monitoring and 

mitigation activities. This includes a management summary table for each historic 

property. 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. The ultimate 

goal is to develop a synthesis which will aid in the management of each historic property. It will 

track all previous activities at each property as well as any identified effects resulting from 

GCDAMP activities. 

Budget FY18 = $- FY19 = $50,000 FY20 = $25,000 

D.11. Hualapai Archive Project 

The Hualapai archive project is to improve values and preserve stories of Hualapai tribal 

members in the Grand Canyon. For the past 30 years, the Hualapai Department of Cultural 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources (HDCR) has conducted interviews with Tribal Elders and Tribal Members to gain 

knowledge about resource condition and changes in resource health for resources in Grand 

Canyon. Some of these interviews were captured in hand written notes, some were associated 

with photographs about certain resources, some were audio recorded and some interviews were 

videotaped. Hundreds of interviews were conducted, and the information is stored in archival 

boxes at HDCR. 

This collection of information needs to be organized and preserved for future generations by 

archiving this information into a digital database. The photographs and videos need to be 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. The ultimate 

goal is to mitigate any identified adverse effect to historic properties. These identified effects 

will be identified any time during the length of this budget. Funding has to be present to deal 

with this mitigation on an emergency basis. [Note: Reclamation will work with tribes, DOI 

agencies, and the CRAHG to identify example mitigation measures that may be appropriate for 

this project prior to the next draft of this budget and work plan.] 

converted to digital formats to preserve them before they deteriorate. One goal in creation of this 

database is to be able to query by resource or place and have all of the interviews (in all formats) 

that pertain to that resource/place be accessed. This database library will be able to be accessed 

by the community (for non-sensitive material) and will act as a data reference collection 

dedicated to preserving Hualapai heritage, language and culture. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Produce a searchable digital database of photographs, notes, videos and audio recordings. 

Compliance with the NHPA, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this project. 

Budget FY18 = $50,000 FY19 = $50,000 FY20 = $-

D.12. Mitigation of Potential Effects under Section 106 

Section 106 of the NHPA calls for the mitigation of any identified adverse effect to historic 

properties. Although no specific adverse effects or actions have been identified, this project is to 

set aside funding for possible future mitigation needs. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Mitigation of identified adverse effects to historic properties as required as part of 

Section 106 under NHPA. 

Budget FY18 = $25,000 FY19 = $25,000 FY20 = $26,000 

21 

Commented [DPB9]: Presumably this important effort will 

inform development of the planned Hualapai TCP nomination. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D.13. Tribal Resources Monitoring 

This budget item provides funds to identify traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and to 

implement Native American monitoring protocols that were developed in FY 2007 and 

recommended by the TWG as part of efforts to develop a core-monitoring program. 

In addition, the five GCDAMP Tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, 

Pueblo of Zuni, and Navajo Nation) will work with Reclamation and the NPS to implement 

monitoring of historic properties in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

Budget 

Budget 

The primary goal of this activity is to monitor and evaluate the effects of dam operations and 

other actions under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior on resources of value to Native 

American Tribes. A secondary goal is to conduct condition monitoring of historic properties to 

assist BOR in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Annual reports will be prepared detailing activities, findings, and monitoring data that result 

from implementing core-monitoring protocols for historic properties. Condition monitoring data 

will be provided to BOR to assist in prioritization of historic properties for treatment in 

subsequent years. In addition, monitoring data will be used to update NPS databases. 

This project includes funding for five tribes for up to $35,000 each year (plus CPI) 

FY17 = $175,000 FY18 = $177,000 FY20 = $179,000 

D.14. Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP 

This budget item provides funding through agency appropriations (not power revenues) for 

the participation in GCDAMP meetings of the five GCDAMP Tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai 

Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation). This funding covers preparation for 

meetings, participation in meetings, and travel costs associated with participation in the 

meetings. The purpose of the funding is to ensure tribal viewpoints are integrated into 

continuing GCDAMP dialogs, votes, and in the final recommendations made to the Secretary of 

the Interior. The five DOI agencies (U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, BOR, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs) provide appropriated funding to support 

this budget item, with BOR serving as lead agency. 

FY18 = $475,000 FY19 = $475,000 FY20= $475,000 

22 

Commented [DPB10]: To what extent do these monitoring 

programs address historic sites already listed under Section 106, and 

to what extent do they pertain to potentially less “site”-specific 

values? If the latter, and they are documented under TCP 

designations, then these monitoring efforts become another element 

that needs to be integrated into the larger coordinated effort 

discussed in my earlier Comment under project D5. 
                                                      

                                                 

                                                      

                                                                  

                                                                        

                                                                  

                                                                      

                                                                        

                                                                  

                                                                  

                                                              

                                                          

                                                                        

                                                                  

                                                                      

                                                                  

                                                            

                                                                  

                                                          

                                                              

                                                                                         

                                                          

                                                              

   

                                                                                                

                                                                                           

                                                                                     

     

Reclamation    Adaptive Management        Program Budget Summary FY2018‐2020

2018 2019 2020

AMP Total w/ 1% CPI) $ 11,025,454 $ 11,135,708 $ 11,247,066

Reclamation side total (20%) $ 2,205,091 $ 2,227,142 $ 2,249,413

A Adaptive Management Work Group $ 440,000 $ 443,900 $ 447,839

A.1 Adaptive Management Work Group Costs (BOR) $ 220,000 $ 222,200 $ 224,422

A.2 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement $ 20,000 $ 20,200 $ 20,402

A.3 AMWG Reclamation Travel $ 20,000 $ 20,200 $ 20,402

A.4 AMWG Facilitation Contract $ 90,000 $ 90,900 $ 91,809

A.5.1 Public Outreach ‐ Reclamation public affairs, POAG $ 25,000 $ 25,250 $ 25,503

A.5.2 Public Outreach‐ Administrative History $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000

A.6 AMWG Other $ 15,000 $ 15,150 $ 15,302

B Technical Working Group $ 215,000 $ 217,150 $ 219,322

B.1 TWG Costs $ 120,000 $ 121,200 $ 122,412

B.2 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement $ 25,000 $ 25,250 $ 25,503

B.3 TWG Reclamation Travel $ 20,000 $ 20,200 $ 20,402

B.4 TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation $ 35,000 $ 35,350 $ 35,704

B.5 TWG Other $ 15,000 $ 15,150 $ 15,302

C Program Administration, ESA Compliance, and Management Actions $ 1,170,066 $ 1,365,093 $ 1,365,615

C.1 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting $ 137,766 $ 139,143 $ 140,535

C.2 Contract Administration $ 100,000 $ 101,000 $ 102,010

C.3 Science Advisors Program $ 205,000 $ 207,050 $ 209,121

C.4 Integrated Stakeholder River Trip $  ‐ $ 40,000 $  ‐

C.5 Experimental Management Fund $ 500,000 $ 505,000 $ 510,050

C.6 Experimental Vegetation Treatment $ 210,300 $ 272,900 $ 293,900

C.7 Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund

C.8 Evaluation of means to prevent fish passage through GCD $  ‐ $ 100,000 $  ‐

C.9 Evaluation of temperature control methods at GCD $  ‐ $  ‐ $ 100,000

C.10 Ridgway Rail and Southwest Willow Flycatcher monitoring $ 17,000 $  ‐ $ 10,000

carryover from previous years

23
 
                                                          

                                                                  

                                                                                  

                                                                      

                                                                      

                                                                                            

                                                              

                                                                                       

                                                      

                                                                                         

                                                                              

                                                                              

                                                                    

                                                                

                                         

                               

                                                         

D Cultural Resources $ 867,031 $ 754,828 $ 661,617

D.1 Reclamation Cultural Resources Program Management $ 150,000 $ 151,500 $ 153,015

D.2 Contractor support to Reclamation for cultural resources program $ 150,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,750

D.3 Cultural Resources Monitoring ‐ Grand Canyon $ 34,268 $ 25,511 $ 26,006

D.4 Cultural Resources Monitoring ‐ Glen Canyon $ 47,763 $ 44,517 $ 45,213

D.5 Documentation of Navajo, Hualapai, and Paiute TCPs $ 30,000 $ ‐ $ ‐

D.6 Associative values studies $ 130,000 $ 131,300 $ 132,613

D.8 Cultural sensitivity training development ‐ tribal expertise $ 50,000 $ ‐ $ ‐

D.9 Cultural sensitivity training video $ 25,000 $ 25,000 ‐

D.10 Collective summary of past monitoring and mitigation activities $ ‐ $ 50,000 $ 25,000

D.11 Hualapai archive project $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ ‐

D.12 Potential mitigation under sec 106 $ 25,000 $ 25,250 $ 25,503

D.13 Tribal cultural resources monitoring $ 175,000 $ 176,750 $ 178,518

D.14 Tribal participation in AMP (not funded by power revenues) $ 475,000 $ 475,000 $ 475,000

TOTAL Anticipated Final Reclamation Budget (w/ 1% CPI) $ 2,205,091 $ 2,227,142 $ 2,249,413

TOTAL initial Reclamation budget $ 2,692,097 $ 2,780,971 $ 2,694,393

(Over) / Under budget $ (487,006) $ (553,830) $ (444,980)

24