TWG Comments 

Budget & Work Plan Presentation (November 12-13, 2003) 

GCMRC FY05-06 Draft Interim Monitoring and Research Work Plan (dated Nov. 10, 2003) – [The BAHG Response

Comments From 

GENERAL BUDGET PROCESS & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS 

1 As far as general budget development, we’ve got to stick to a more reasonable time table for review. Presently, the transition to the new organizational framework of GCMRC has made it difficult to accurately assess details of the budget requests. For example, the budget summary table presented at the TWG meeting does not match items identified in the work plan (the upgrade presented at the TWG meeting, not the review copy presented on 11/4 through the AMP web site). Hopefully this basic issue will be resolved before the Dec 1 budget ad-hoc meeting. Obviously we are behind schedule, but in the future, draft work plans should be presented 30 days before discussion in a TWG meeting. This is a large complicated project and 5 business days lead time for a informed budget discussion is not sufficient. 

GCRG Renew c

follow thestablish04/13/01budget a(BAHG)14-day lmeetingfeasibletakes ththe timediscussibasis of programschedulead-hoc wyear bud

2 I know the center does not have an administrative secretary [officer] at the moment, but 

actual costs for previous years will be essential in future years. 

GCRG This info

and will future in form. ThinformatrecommBAHG. 

3 In general, all of the project descriptions were too abbreviated. Each project should include a description of the methods, project schedule, trip schedule, personnel needs, and a more detailed budget. If a project includes contingencies for experimental flow activities, these should also be listed with the project and include methods, schedule detailed budget items. Outsourced science/labor should be specifically identified if known. I like to apply the Who, What, Why, When, How (WWWWH) rule. Who is doing the project, What are they doing, Why 

GCRG This info

in the foplans (aand in thsolicitatithey are 
Comments From 

are they doing it – link to strategic plan, When are they going to do it, and How are they going to do it and how much is it going to cost. In reviewing the workplan, it seems that most project descriptions are lacking in descriptions of Who is going to do the work (if known), What are they doing (methods and schedule), Why this project is important by linking it with the strategic plan – perhaps a separate table describing these linkages would be appropriate, and How much is it going to cost (more detailed budget or at least access to more detail). 

funded wresult froBAHG wrecommlevel of 

4 I think we made a major mistake in the way the FY05 budget was presented to the TWG. I had less than a day to review the workplan and budget, and was handed a revised document at the TWG meeting. Some of this is the responsibility of the TWG, and not entirely the responsibility of GCMRC. I think had there been sufficient time to review the document and sufficient time to discuss the workplan and budget, we might have this resolved. 

AZGF Renew 

follow thestablish04/13/01budget a(BAHG)14-day lmeetingfeasibletakes ththe timediscussibasis of programschedulead-hoc wyear bud

5 - I think we need at least a three-day meeting to go over the budget and have a full discussion of workplan and budget. 

AZGF Renew c

“Quality budget/wdiscussimemo obudget athis. 

6 - The current process for TWG review of the proposed FY ‘05 budget and work plan is less than acceptable and does not provide a mechanism for meaningful input by the TWG to Reclamation and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, much less the Secretary of the Interior concerning the Program. The TWG and AMWG have spent many years struggling to develop an acceptable out-year budget and work plan approval process. This 

CREDA This com

addressthe devebudgetin
Comments From 

process has not been followed for FY ‘05. 7 - USBR and GCMRC have put a commendable effort into the FY05 budget plan. GRCA appreciates this effort and is looking forward to a final product that can be replicated in future budgets. This will allow for GCMRC staff to spend more time on science and less time on a budget. 

NPS-GRCA This info

and will future in form. ThinformatrecommBAHG. 

8 - Please identify actual costs in the budget sheets (tables). NPS-GRCA Will be p

BAHG re

9 - Identify actual type of award. For example the money may be outsourced but is it sole sourced verses internal USGS competition verses open to the public competition, etc? 

NPS-GRCA Will be p

BAHG re

10 - Why would delays of the FY05 budget approval process result in decreasing the research that goes out for public competition? There are several public entities that are not on a university schedule. University personnel should not be the focus for completed research. 

NPS-GRCA The ear

approvebecomegetting taward pand the 

11 - Draft work plan numbers and titles do not correspond with the FY05-06 line item budget. Please adjust accordingly for a more effortless review. 

NPS-GRCA GCMRC 

future. 

12 - The budgeting process should involve the Budget Ad Hoc Committee plus GCMRC first, then TWG, then AMWG. 

NPS-GRCA Follow e

process 

13 - The budget should be based on an integrated model of the ecosystem structure and an agreed upon program administration. We recommend the Science Advisory Panel review that model. 

GC Wildlands The BAH

review o& sciencbe done Advisors 

14 - The budget should be formatted to incorporate the Experimental Management Actions and the HBC Actions into the appropriate resource areas in the GCMRC Science Activities. These are science activities also, and need to be evaluated in the context of the other monitoring and research activities within the resource areas. They should remain distinct projects (and in some cases where they have been combined into other resource projects in the workplan they need to be split out into distinct projects), but they should be grouped with like projects in the terrestrial, aquatic, integrated or sociocultural/other program areas. 

GC Wildlands The BAH

this comcurrently proposebudget & 

15 - To assist in evaluating the research components of the proposed budget line items, it GC Wildlands The GC
Comments From 

would be helpful to have the IN that the research project addresses and its sequence order 

number attached to the line item. 

this will preparatworkpla

16 - The budget breakdowns need to be more detailed. If we are being asked to make recommendations on a budget, we need the ability to look at augmenting or cutting the budget within any particular project in order to put together a budget recommendation that does the science that we think needs to be done for the money that we have available. The “Outsourced 

Science/Labor” category should be split into two. The logistics category should indicate estimated number of trips and cost per trip. The operations category should include a breakdown of what is included in that category with line item budget numbers attached. And the salary category should include a breakdown of the positions included and the number of pay periods estimated, again with line item budget numbers attached. 

GC Wildlands BAHG w

commenrecommbudgets and bey

17 - GCMRC appears to be too big; more money should be sent out to competitive science (non USGS scientists.) 

GC Wildlands Approp

discussi

WAPA 

18 - L. 24-38 (Tribal Consultation): Have other tribes been invited to be involved? GC Wildlands Yes, (Ha

remain uintereste

19 - Tribal role within the science program (continued): What the Hopi Tribe would like to see is a mechanism whereby tribal programs can develop culturally relevant monitoring and science that can be funded at levels appropriate to accomplish the work and that these projects go through the same type of peer review that other projects receive. Obviously, the review needs to address whether the methodology is appropriate for addressing the questions within a given cultural system, not whether the cultural system itself is valid. Currently, the limited funding opportunities for tribes are a fixed amount, not tied to a specific task or scope and level of work. This fixed (equal) funding approach essentially obviates the Center's peer review process and sends the message that work by tribes is not really rigorous and of a lesser value within the broader science program. 

GC Wildlands The BAH

an AMWat future -Tribes sproposadescribifuture acthey sho-It is not why the funding to the practivitiesexisting should b
Comments From 

20 - Scope and direction that the science program is headed: concern about the direction of the program as a whole, while not a budget item in and of itself, is fundamental to funding priorities within the program and has not been explicitly addressed or resolved on the broad scale. Perhaps the biggest dichotomy is the relative weights of research vs. monitoring. (In this discussion, research is used to mean relatively short-term “experiments” to address a specific process related question whereas monitoring is used to mean collection of data to identify temporal trends (recognizing that neither of these categories are not mutually exclusive)). Obviously, an understanding of the _workings_of the system is need at some level in order to effect management actions. It is also necessary at some level in order to effectively and efficiently monitor the system since not everything can be directly measured. It seems like the program, however, is stuck in the _understand the system_phase and is not moving into a monitoring phase. It is the rare meeting that you don't hearing about the next [fill in your favorite resource group] flow experiment_or a modification to an ongoing one. And each of these requires additional study that eats into an already under-funded program. Discussion needs to occur on what is the proper balance for the program. The system is dynamic and virtually every year will bring slightly differing conditions and dam operations. If we continue to go down the path that we seem to be following, our effort will be focused on treating each _event_as an 

experiment unto itself and forsaking the long-term monitoring continuity. A parallel issues is the role that the Center (and AMP program as a whole) is going to take in active management outside of direct dam operations. In part, this is an in-and-out issue, but at a broader level than just for the Ins, MOs, etc. The clearest example is surrounding the humpback chub. The program seems to be moving ever closer to becoming a humpback chub recovery program. Whether this is good or bad isn't necessarily the issue. There just hasn't been adequate resolution of whether this is the direction that the program should go; it just seems to be proceeding on its own inertia. The ramifications on a capped budget of moving beyond fundamentally being a resources monitoring program into remediation (a management agency function) are substantial to say the least. 

GC Wildlands BAHG w

commenof a procyears pldocume

21 - Tribal role within the science program: The need and desire to incorporate tribes and tribal values into the science program has been clearly and repeatedly stated within science and management forums of the AMP. Unfortunately it is not reflected in the budget. In fact, the potential for realizing real tribal participation is decreasing. Within the FY05 budget, the only place within the science program for tribal participation is in the terrestrial monitoring and this is limited; the cultural program doesn't even have any! For the past three years, the Hopi Tribe 

has been working towards developing an integrated monitoring approach with the GCMRC's terrestrial monitoring program. It seeks to utilize the expertise of the Center's program to collect 

specific resource data while complementing this with tribal knowledge that can only be 

Hopi The BAH

an AMWat future -Tribes sproposadescribifuture acthey sho
Comments From 

collected with direct participation of tribal participants. The base funding for this program has dropped from 25K to 10K for FY05 and appears that it will remain at this level, irregardless of the level and needs for the Tribe. There are additional funds for developing an outreach plan in FY05 which is appreciated by the Hopi Tribe (as this is an integral part of the Hopi long-term monitoring plan), but which may or may not be appropriate for other tribes. Each tribe needs to develop its own culturally appropriate participation needs. Outside of the terrestrial monitoring program, there are no funding mechanisms available for the tribes to directly participate within the science program. In order to fundamentally participate, a tribe needs to be able to develop monitoring and research approaches that address the needs of the program (and the tribe) from within its own cultural system. It can't be accomplished from the outside. Simply adding a tribe to an already developed program is more along the lines of consultation, not participation at a fundamental level. In the past, more culturally appropriate participation this has been facilitated through the use of unsolicited proposals from the tribes, but this mechanism is not available for FY05. 

-It is not why the funding to the practivitiesexisting should b

22- The workplan contained no project descriptions of a) tribal consultation, b) cooperation with tribes, c) tribal river trips, d) programmatic agreement. GCRG would like to request these items be added. Every element of the program should have the same level of project description. 

GCRG Reclama

see aboinformatmissing. 

CORE MONITORING: GENERAL 23 - I feel uncomfortable in cutting core monitoring for any program area. I would prefer that some of those funds be reinstated. Examples include terrestrial, coarse sediments and fine sediments. I understand that GCMRC is considering going to an every-other-year core monitoring schedule. That may be appropriate in some cases. However, without some sort of scientific evaluation, switching over to biennial at this time would be inappropriate. 

WAPA The BA

“core mobeen fulThese paddresscase ba

24 - In the last GCMRC presentation at the TWG it was apparent that “core monitoring” was suffering from a lack of funds. Why is “core monitoring” being cut before other research? Why doesn’t the budget reflect (emphasize) the importance of “core monitoring” and de-emphasize extra curricular experiments? GCMRC will be submitting reports on the importance of “core monitoring” in April, yet, those programs are the ones being cut. This is a contradiction in practice. 

NPS-GRCA The BA

“core mobeen fulThese paddresscase ba

25 - Lines 102-107. It has been told to TWG members that higher technology and models will allow for a decrease in field work and a decrease in overall core monitoring activities. When will the budget reflect this? Currently, the budget reflects when the models will be completed, yet the budget shows no consequential decrease in expenditures. Please explain this. This is 

NPS-GRCA The BA

the answquestionthe 2006 
Comments From 

also exhibited in lines 138 and 140. budgets 26 - Need to fully funding the core monitoring program: This comment is pretty much selfexplanatory. Things that are identified as core monitoring should be the first things to be funded. TWG/AMWG recognized the importance of core monitoring when it conducted the prioritization exercise: core monitoring was not included in the exercise precisely because it needed to be done every year (or as appropriate as dictated by resource response time) in order to maintain a scientifically valid monitoring program. The FY05 budget has substantial reductions in a number of the projects identified as core monitoring, in particular the terrestrial monitoring and some of the sediment projects. If these are not truly considered to be core monitoring, than that should be identified. Otherwise thought needs to be given to restoring funding to them. 

HOPI 

 The BA“core mobeen fulThese paddresscase ba

EXPERIMENTAL FLOWS: GENERAL 27 - Zeroing out the experimental flow component for the mass balance program seems inappropriate since we want to do an experimental flow if we get the sediment trigger. Without this monitoring program, it may be impossible to assess if it worked. 

WAPA BAHG w

plan & bcarry-ov“with” ansedimencompon

28 - Pg. 43. These three contingency events perhaps should be included as a regular budget item owing to their importance. If hydrologic conditions prevent their being deployed, then funds could be allocated to less critical needs or carried over. 

CREDA BAHG w

plan & bcarry-ov“with” ansedimencompon

29 - If the experiment doesn’t occur, where will the funds be moved? How much of the program continues regardless of the experiment? If the experiment does not occur wouldn’t it be wise to reinstate “core monitoring” programs that were cut? 

NPS-GRCA BAHG w

plan & bcarry-ov“with” ansedimencompon

30 - Pg. 45. We fail to understand why baseline monitoring work needed to test the value of a 1994 Biological Opinion-mandated set of flows has not been done and why it is now considered “additional work.” By 2005, it will be over 10 years since the BO mandated such work. We seriously question the need for a SASF release regimen; but we also have scant information on 

baseline conditions that would help make the necessary comparisons, to possibly result in 

CREDA The BAH

the chalcompariGCMRC presenti
Comments From 

recommendations to the Secretary. A GCMRC plan (Program of Experimental Flows) agreed to by USBR and USFWS to meet the BO RPA was intended to study the SASF concept. This plan requires a year of ROD flows in an 8.23 maf year and this occurred in 2003. However, it is our understanding that monitoring and research of the kind and intensity thought necessary during the 90-day period of the 2000 LSSF to test its effects was not repeated in 2003. The workplan is silent on addressing this significant baseline issue. We suggest there should be a presentation to the TWG of the comparative findings (2000 v. 2003). 

TWG in the resuincorpormonitoridecision

COMMENTS RE: PA PROJECTS 31 - The BOR line item for treatment for NN and GLCA concerns me since it is treating sites above the 97,000 cfs line. I prefer to renegotiate the sites for treatment to a lower stage flow. 

WAPA The BAH

this is a the comtreatmen

32 - Since the proposed “APE” for treatment of archaeological sites has been negotiated to 97,000 cfs, I would like to see some of those funds retained to begin the whole canyon treatment plan, preferably a monitoring and treatment plan. 

WAPA If the NN 

plan reqthan is ccan be rthe GranCorridor plan. 

33 - The recommendation of the BOR to reduce the TCP GIS funding to $30,000 is appropriate since Zuni is interested in pursuing this project. 

WAPA The BA

proposaunder thresults aAMP ansubjectereview. free up $FY05 bu

34 - Line 48. TCP GIS – This presentation left TWG representatives confused. The question is will TCP information be integrated into a GIS data base for use in assessing affects of AMP actions on National Register eligible and non National Register eligible Traditional Cultural Properties as a result of this project? If so, why isn’t there a push for all tribes to participate as 

this would be very important for partial completion of GCMRC’s integrated data base? 

NPS-GRCA The BA

proposaunder thresults aAMP ansubjectereview. 
Comments From 

free up $FY05 bu

35 - The recommendation for $10,000 for the Zuni to participate in the check dam work sounds premature. Based on the meeting, Zuni is not ready to work on the check dams until additional studies are done on their efficacy. 

WAPA The BAH

the TWG should cwith regof check arroyo g

36 - Line 47. Zuni Conservation Program: The installation, monitoring and maintenance of check dams are an essential part of the preservation program. It could be combined with NPS funds if the additional funds were added to NPS budget. TWG representatives were very confused after Reclamation’s presentation for this project. The presentation of this program came across as being completed by unprofessional Zuni personnel and as a task not really needed. This presentation was not only insulting to the Zuni Tribe, but also an embarrassment to people who actually reviewed the draft final by Joel Pederson and others (University of Utah). The Pederson report indicated that “Based on these results, we recommend that the placement, monitoring, and maintenance of erosion-control structures continue in Grand Canyon, and that further research be done to confirm our initial findings, including that brush check dams are superior to rock linings”. NPS strongly supports continued funding to the Zuni Tribe for these efforts until determined otherwise. 

NPS-GRCA The BAH

the TWG should cwith regof check arroyo g

37 - The monitoring line item for GLCA may need to be zeroed out since the sites will receive treatment. 

WAPA Funding 

upon twsites havto treatmthe type requires The FY0adjusted progress process

38 - I would like the table for each project to reflect the amounts of dollars associated with the experimental flow. I would also like to see the dollars for what is called core monitoring. 

WAPA GCMRC 

to the FYreflect thcategoricore mo
Comments From 

39 - There seems to be much disagreement between BR, NPS, and PA signatories over the scope of the cultural program. Perhaps AMWG needs to recommend to the Secretary that BR and NPS work with the PA to define the APE and clarify responsibilities for compliance. It appears that the PA and GCMRC haven’t made much progress. Would resolution of the APE issue help the AMP with decisions about which projects (Holocene deposits) might be covered within the AMP and which should be funded by other programs? 

AZGF A prese

the PA shistory osuggestclarificatBOR anworking an agreejoint resto future budgets 

40 - Programmatic Agreement: Dennis Kubly indicated at the last TWG meeting that Reclamation and the National Park Service were close to agreement on the shared compliance responsibilities for cultural resources. This agreement may have an impact on the FY ’05 activities identified for the Programmatic Agreement, but to what extent is unclear to CREDA. 

During the November TWG meeting it was clear that there was close to $400,000 that could be trimmed (which Reclamation appeared to support) from the proposed programmatic activities. It was unclear in the TWG meeting whether Reclamation supported the revisions to the proposed FY ‘05 Programmatic Agreement activities. Given this uncertainty, CREDA would like to understand how the agreement between Reclamation and the National Park Service will affect the overall Programmatic Agreement responsibilities, how it will revise the activities 

identified for FY ‘05, and what will happen with the funds that are trimmed from the Programmatic Agreement. Will these funds be reprogrammed and what is the process for the TWG to comment on that reprogramming, or will they be subtracted from the total FY ‘05 budget? Given these uncertainties, CREDA continues to support our original comments to delay funding for the Whole Canyon Treatment Plan, to limit the National Park Service’s Glen Canyon monitoring program request unless the National Park Service presents the TWG with a detailed work plan and justification for this monitoring, to re-evaluate and perhaps delay the need for check-dam construction during FY ‘05, and reduce the TCP GIS documentation project scope of work to a pilot project for the Pueblo of Zuni with sufficient funding to develop protocols that the other four tribes may choose to follow. Above all, Reclamation should provide the TWG with sufficient time to meaningfully comment on the FY ‘05 activities proposed under the Programmatic Agreement and to understand how the TWG’s comments were considered by Reclamation. 

CREDA TBD 

41 - L. 42, 48 (Database and TCP GIS): Who is doing the work? GC Wildlands Zuni will 
Comments From 

The BAHfrom the determinCultural will be many discrequired

42 - Line 43. NPS GRCA – This program is for both Monitoring and Treatment please reflect 

this in the title. Additionally, the actual request for funds for FY05 is $276,000. At the PA meeting, $206,000 was discussed, but it was not based upon the NPS funding request. As with other out year budgets recommended by GCRMC, it would be appropriate to include the actual request rather than the funds that have currently been identified. Throughout the 

program definitions, TWG has encouraged GCMRC to submit budgets to reflect the work to be done, even if these funding requests are above current levels. The PA program budget should be equally represented. 

NPS-GRCA The BAH

this cominformatunderstarequest $206,00

43 - Line 46. Whole Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation: Please note that at the last PA meeting the majority of representatives expressed that these dollars to be spent on a 

formalized treatment plan. The dollars left over from the plan would be used to begin treatment to fulfill Reclamation’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities as stated in the 1994 Programmatic Agreement. By no means will treatment be completed in FY05. 

NPS-GRCA The BAH

44 - "Whole Canyon Treatment Plan": The title of this project seems to concern some TWG members; (please edit to reflect that the treatment plan is for part of the Colorado River corridor below Lees Ferry, not the whole Grand Canyon.) 

NPS-GRCA The BAH

Note: Netitle of thaccurategeograp

45 - L. 43-44(GLCA & GRCA Monitoring): Review cost effectiveness. 

GC Wildlands The BAH

AMP-funshould bpeer rev

GCMRC INTEGRATED SCIENCE PROGRAMS COMMENTS 46 - Pg. 52. We wonder if the sensitivity level of sediment modeling information is too high, i.e. does it need to be higher than the level needed to help the AMWG recommend modifications to dam operations? First, do we presently have sufficient information to say which of the dam operations reviewed in the EIS will conserve the most sediment, e.g., HFF, MLFF, SASF, etc.). 

CREDA These c

provided the AMWprogram
Comments From 

Second, will further refinement of the data set allow us to recommend a modification to operations at a different level of sensitivity from that found between alternatives described in the EIS? These comments also apply to Project A-3. 

discussibeyond BAHG in the FY0

47 - Project A.1.a IQWP . What is the 15% USGS assessment? Descriptions should be provided for the research projects, including methods, schedule, budget, etc. (– I’ll abbreviate this comment as WWWWH, as it applies to essentially all of the projects) 

GCRG The 15% 

indirect USGS fofrom outprogramThe WWaddressits future as appro

48 - L. 99 (A.1.a, IQWP-Lake Powell): Since these are BOR O&M funds, it should be noted that these funds are restricted to this project, and can’t be used for other aspects of the science program. 

GC Wildlands The BA

49 - Pg. 49. Monitoring component 3 (of project A.1.b in the tailwater only) seems inadequate to track changes in chemical and biological conditions in the CRE. Multiple tributary inflows plus in-situ changes modify chemical and biological conditions below Lees Ferry yet no stations are located downstream. We think additional effort needs to be made to quicken the transition from funding reservoir water quality monitoring in favor of downstream monitoring as suggested by the PEP. Also, under Status/Schedule, comments regarding the initiation of water quality monitoring associated with the TCD are troubling. It will be too late to begin monitoring after the TCD is operable if the intent is to understand changes in water quality resulting from the TCD. A baseline of data should be collected before the TCD is operable and now, with the probability summer 2004 water temperatures will be similar to those from a TCD, this workplan should include such work. 

CREDA The BAH

that an adone (by scientistthe TWGQW data ongoing support simulatioshould adownstrSection are avaimeasurewarmer FY04 an

50 - L. 95 (A.1.b., IQWP-Downstream): Why does the program need to spend $200k on this? GC Wildlands The BAH
Comments From 

Don’t we have enough data to model temperature throughout the river corridor downstream from the dam? If we are monitoring water quality in the reservoir, how much effort do we have to fund to monitor it downstream of the dam? Does what is released change that much as it travels downstream? Can we model that as well? We see huge potential overlap with the aquatic foodbase monitoring as well – is that so? We need to assess whether this project is doing more work than it needs to. Have we done a power analysis? We also need to assess whether water quality is a significant enough priority for the program to be spending $200k on it. 

that existhe CRE analyzed addressquestion

51 - Project A.1.b. more detail is needed as to what this program entails.(WWWWH) GCRG The WW

addressits future as appro

52 - Project A.1.c. restore funding level. The consequences of current proposal are unacceptable. This program is essential to the program. More detail is needed about this project (WWWWH). 

GCRG BAHG w

plan & bcarry-ov“with” ansedimencomponBarring the EHFadditionnon-ROin FY05(see GCplan). 

53 - L. 54 (Project A.1.c, experimental component): We’re not clear from the workplan about what would be done if there were more funds available, so we can’t evaluate the cut. Would the program be getting necessary additional information regarding transport rates from this work if we could fund it? 

GC Wildlands See #52 

54 - L. 103 (A.1.c, Stream-flow and sand transport-core monitoring): The cuts in this program were explained at the last TWG meeting, but we’re still confused...can we get a written 

explanation of what is being cut in this project and what the implications for the long-term data stream are? Is this reduced core monitoring? The general comments from line 102 apply here as well. 

GC Wildlands See #52 
Comments From 

55 - Project A.1.d. not included in plan. Add to revision using the WWWWH rule. GCRG Details f

monitoridescribe(food bathis elem

56 - Project A.2. restore funding for this core monitoring program GCRG Propose

biennial beginninbe discumonitori

57 - (Project A.2 coarse sed modeling): We agree with zeroing this out for 2005. With limited funds, the program needs to lean toward direct effects monitoring associated with the experimental purposes. However, in the long run we need to get a better sense of how important understanding the coarse sediment component of the sediment dynamic is, compared to some of the fine sediment work, and whether our budgeting is in line with those priorities. 

GC Wildlands The BAH

examine core-mo

58 - L. 104 (A.2 coarse grained inputs-core monitoring): Does monitoring of coarse sediment need to occur with the same frequency as monitoring of fine sediment? It seems like this could occur less frequently given less rapid transport rates. 

GC Wildlands See #56 

59 - A.2 coarse sediment monitoring: I like the biennial approach, and hope we see this kind of approach with other projects. 

AZGF See #56 

60 - Project A.3. restore funding for this core monitoring program. Break out experimental flow and core monitoring activities. (WWWWH) 

GCRG There is 

this projratio betand exp25% (mo

61 - A3. sand storage core monitoring: I’m concerned about cuts to core monitoring and I’m confused by which parts of this budget are for core monitoring, which are experimental portion. Can those components be broken out, or is that not possible? 

AZGF The rat

monitoriexperim(mon) to 

62 - L. 102 (A.3, FIST): What exactly gets cut here – field collections? Will there be fewer trips going out? How is the long-term data stream affected? A lot of the sediment work is taking a hit in 2005, and it would be helpful to get a big-picture, non-technical view of what that means in terms of our ability to continue to develop our understanding of the sediment situation in the canyon. Also, we should take a look at how dependent we may have become on high-tech but 

GC Wildlands These is

clarified developGCMRCand core
Comments From 

relatively expensive ways of monitoring the sediment resource that makes that monitoring vulnerable to interruptions in the long-term data stream when the budgets are tight, money has to be spent in other categories, and sediment projects get cut. 63 - L. 55( Project A.3-FIST): Why does this component get funding and the mass balance does not? Again, we’re not clear from the workplan as to what actual effects monitoring would occur under this line item. Would all the studies in the “Experimental Component” paragraph on page 61 of the 11/10/03 version of the workplan be included? If not, which ones would? There seem to be a bunch of separate projects all lumped together under this line item – we suggest they be broken out and budget figures attached to each project. 

GC Wildlands Under F

limitationsand bagiven prthe consof the EAdditionbe addeelementof the FY 

64 - Each of these projects that has been subsumed into larger projects like FIST should actually be broken out in the workplan with their own project descriptions and budget line items so that we can evaluate them separately. We don’t want to have to zero out FIST in order to zero out a project that isn’t actually core monitoring, but rather is experimental flow effects monitoring. 

GC Wildlands The GC

and dessub-projfuture FYrevisions

65 - The eolian transport study completed by Draut/Rubin should be a line item in this section rather than in the experimental section. It is one of the few integrated studies by the AMP and should be clearly acknowledged by TWG representatives. 

NPS-GRCA The GC

and desmore cleworkpla

66 - L. 69 (sed. depostion in arroyos): There is a zero line item for this, but the note says it is included in A.3. This is confusing. Is it going to be done, but it has just been combined into another project (if so, we’d like to see it split out with its own budget line item)? Or has it been combined into another project and there are no dollars for it in that project either, so it will not

be done? 

GC Wildlands The bud

effort is project Aas a sepitem in f

67 - L. 80 (A.4.a, Terrestrial Ecosystem core monitoring): The >50% cut in this project is foolish. To eliminate bird surveys and other basic terrestrial wildlife monitoring efforts for a year 

is not acceptable. The legal implications of eliminating SWFL monitoring alone are serious. We need to find a way to restore the project to workable levels in 2005, the way we anticipate doing it in 2006. 

GC Wildlands The BAH

this be a additionfunding annual s

68 - A1.4 Terrestrial monitoring: What legal obligation does this group (AMP) have to monitoring SWFL? If Fall vegetation monitoring is the “minimum” that must be accomplished to monitor relationships between Dam operations and vegetation, it should be identified as core 

AZGF The BAH

this be a addition
Comments From 

monitoring and continued. $80,000 to interpret fall vegetation monitoring seems excessive funding 

annual sThe BAHan AMWat future 

69 - Project A.4.a. Terrestrial Biological Resources – Core Monitoring. CREDA is concerned that this important “core monitoring” program is being dramatically cut (by the Center’s own admission by more than 50%) and reduced in scope by the Center in FY05 in order to fund other, perhaps less necessary, research projects. CREDA believes that core monitoring of terrestrial biological resources is vital to the effectiveness of the Adaptive Management Program and the collection of monitoring data on these resources is part of the foundation of the AMP. CREDA recommends funding the terrestrial biological monitoring program and all core monitoring programs at the necessary levels in favor of other less germane research projects. 

CREDA 

 The BAthis be a additionfunding annual s

70 - Line 70. A.4.a, 1. Terrestrial Ecosystem -- please list the programs included. Does this include tribal dollars? 

NPS-GRCA Mainly v

tribal paare inclu

71 - Project A.4.a restore funding for this core monitoring program. The consequences of current proposal are unacceptable. (WWWWH) 

GCRG The BA

this be a additionfunding annual s

72 - Project A.4.b. more info is needed for this project. Is this funding for each tribe? Who is going to do what? Is this integrated with A.4.a? (WWWWH) 

GCRG The BAH

funding either as terrestriapart of trYes, this integrate

73 - Project A.4.b Core Monitoring – Terrestrial Ecosystem: Tribal Involvement Component – Based on the very limited information provided in the work plan narrative, it appears to CREDA to be very naive of the Center to believe that they can develop booklets, CDs and other tools that will translate scientific terminology and data into culturally relevant and meaningful 

CREDA 
Comments From 

categories and terms for five (5) culturally unique and distinct tribes with $25,000. CREDA questions whether this is an effective use of the funding amount tied to this program and suggests it may be more prudent to delay this effort to a time when the project is more thoroughly developed and identified as an exclusive project. 74 - L. 81 (A.4.b, TEM-tribal component: This project is important. However, we’d like to know how critical it is that we spend the $25,000 for the tools that translate scientific terminology and date into culturally relevant categories and terms in 2005. Can any part of that element of the project be deferred for a year or longer? 

GC Wildlands 

75 - L. 82 (A.5, Kanab Ambersnail core monitoring): This is important. It looks like we have been successful in cutting the costs of doing this work. The increase for 2006 is questionable, but that can be addressed when we discuss the 2006 budget. 

GC Wildlands 

76 - L. 83 (New Research in Terrestrial Ecosystems): What’s up with this? We add it but we abandon it? Can we get a sense at some point of what was anticipated here? Was it supposed to address INs? Respond to PEP recommendations? 

GC Wildlands 

77 - L. 84 (mapping holocene deposits): If the project has been eliminated, drop the line item. GC Wildlands 78 - Project A.6. How does this project integrate with DASA? Is this project being conducted in 

cooperation with A.4.a personnel? Is this a project to develop new protocols for veg monitoring? Says imagery will be collected in 2006. What about the 2004 imagery? (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

79 - L. 85 (A.6, Habitat Map and Inventory): Any real implications of not moving this project along in 2005? If the program is not doing this in 2005, why can’t we come up with enough $ to at least monitor terrestrial resources? 

GC Wildlands 

80 - Project A.7. Suggests carrying forward 04 funds to 05. Isn’t this an ongoing project? If so, why would it have a 04 carryover? (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

81 - L. 87 & 88 (A.7 Kanab Ambersnail Taxonomy): How important is it to complete this in 2005? The workplan does not reflect this $25,000 in AMP funds, nor does it describe why AMP funds are necessary. The AMWG has determined that the taxonomy questions associated with KAS are not appropriate for power revenues and should not be done through GCMRC. That 

puts this whole project in question. Since the taxonomy needs to be resolved, discussions should begin with FWS regarding how to have them take that on. 

 BAHG u

AMP funto be usclarify th

82 - Project A.8. experimental flow component needs to be fully developed – what does it add to the budget? (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

83 - L. 92 (A.8 Aquatic Foodbase): Is this whole project being competitively bid? Are there experimental components to this project that are part of the $315,000 total (this is very confusing)? If so, those should be eliminated (see comments to lines 61 and 65). 

 See req

below 
Comments From 

84 - A 8 Aquatic foodbase new initiative: I think this initiative needs more discussion with the TWG. What was core monitoring in 97-2000, 01, 02, 03? What did it reveal, what is wrong with it? An RFP with somewhat prescriptive methods for assessing the foodbase was issued recently for foodbase studies. Can we have an update on what happened, what work was done, why it wasn’t sufficient to meet information needs? I would like to have a more complete discussion of this resource. The initiative, if it is a 3-5 year initiative (likely I suspect) seems 

very expensive. How is this different from Project A11? 

AZGF BAHG r

a thorouthe food including are beinfoodbasTWG undifferent togetherneed to identificapredatiodeterminshould ba detailediscussiat the ne

85 - L. 93 (A.9 Status and Trends of Downstream Fish): For $820,000, we need a MUCH more detailed description of what is included in this project. We also need to know what is different or what is being cut from 2004 to 2005 that reduces the budget line item by $50,000, and what the potential impact of that cut will be. Just to say that $820,000 is needed to monitor status and trends of downstream fish, including recruitment, abundance and distribution of natives and non-natives, is not enough. 

 BAHG w

the answfrom GC

86 - A9 Core monitoring Downstream fish community: There is a $50,000 cut in outsourced science labor. What work is being cut, or is this to take advantage of “efficiencies”? 

AZGF 

See com

87 - Project A. 10. experimental flow component needs to be fully developed – what does it add to the budget? (WWWWH) 

GCRG Needs to 

FY05 bumay carof the latracking exp. flow spent in 

88 - L. 94 (A.10, status and Trends of LF Trout): Will this monitoring effort have any ability to assist in assessing the efficacy of the fluctuating flows experiment? Do we lose that ability if 

GC Wildlands Core mo

address 
Comments From 

we drop the snorkel surveys? power (n

with one BAHG rePersons a presenon histostarted usurvey adate. 

89 - A10 Core monitoring Lees Ferry fishery: Experimental Component section in the document needs to be cleaned up. 

AZGF Gramma

problemDoesn’t currently 

90 - A11 New research primary productivity: How is this related to A8? This project needs more discussion, I’m unclear on what is involved and how this differs from A 8. 

AZGF BAHG re

project bdevelopthrough next TW

91 - L. 56 (Project A.11- primary Productivity): We’re OK with zeroing this out for 2005. It seems like the program needs to put its energies into developing the core monitoring program for aquatic foodbase, and given limited funds, we need to lean towards direct effects monitoring associated with the experimental purposes. 

GC Wildlands 

92 - L. 96 (Native and Non-native species): Same comment as line 86.(i.e, What is this? Is there a description in the workplan anywhere? If you want a placeholder in the budget, then at least describe what the placeholder is. 

GC Wildlands 

93 - A12 Experimental Treatment: nearshore warming: Is this BOR Temperature control device funding, or is it from AMP funding? Either way I think it needs to be discussed. 

AZGF These a

94 - Project A. 12. Not identified in budget spreadsheet. Can this be integrated with the IQWP and done cheaper? (WWWWH) 

GCRG Reclama

needs to conduct ASAP. 

95 - L. 57 (Project A.12-Temps and Habitat Use): Clarification...are these Section 8 dollars being carried over from FY04? Are they restricted for this purpose? Also, this seems to have two components, monitoring water temperature in near shore environments and monitoring fish utilization of these habitats. Please separate this into two projects, show the relative costs, and 

GC Wildlands Yes, the

Reclamaneeds to conduct 
Comments From 

then show where the cost savings occur from combining field efforts. Finally, the price tag for this seems a bit high. Why is outsourced science/labor $85,000 and salary $30,000? Can this work be done for less? Can there be additional cost savings by doing some logistical combining with other experimental flow effects monitoring trips? 

ASAP. 

96 - Pg. 44 and Projects A-12 and A-29. The workplans should show a line item for studies 

associated with the likely warm water release in summer 2004. Funds are available from CRSP Section 8 for research and monitoring TCD effects. This is an opportunity to test the effects without incurring TCD compliance, design and construction cost. USBR and GCMRC should immediately coordinate this effort and prepare workplans for all those facets to be monitored as if a TCD were operable, e.g., food base, native and nonnative fish, recreation, 

trout fishery, etc. 

CREDA BAHG a

commen

97 - L. 58 (sandbar modeling): How critical is it to verify the sandbar model soon? If we have a high flow in 2005 and can’t do the verification, then don’t have another high flow for several years, do we really hurt our sediment work? 

GC Wildlands Isn’t Th

completwhy is thFY06? 

98 - L. 60(A.13 Kanab Ambersnail pop): Essential for legal compliance. Keep it in. GC Wildlands OK. Ha

money bforward Please pdetailed for A.5 a

99 - Project A.13. Wasn’t this habitat mapping converted into a remotely sensed deal? Why isn’t this just an element of A.5.? (WWWWH) 

GCRG Because 

not be ephotogra

100 - Project A.14. restore funding for this project. Understanding changes to the food base as a result of high flows is a critical aspect of the experiment. (WWWWH) 

GCRG This sh

GCMRCthe TWG on foodb

101 - L. 61(A.14, Foodbase impacts of EHF flows): We’re OK with zeroing this out for 2005. It seems like the program needs to put its energies into developing the core monitoring program for aquatic foodbase, and given limited funds, we need to lean towards direct effects monitoring associated with the experimental purposes. 

GC Wildlands This sh

GCMRCthe TWG on foodb

102 - L. 62 (Monitoring of Adult RBT): If this project is complete, let’s just cut the line item out. GC Wildlands OK. 103 - Project A.15. restore funding for this project. This is the only project I can identify that investigates the intent of the experimental high flows. Why cut it? (WWWWH) 

GCRG This is a

high flow
Comments From 

104 - L. 63 (A.15, distrib. of spawning Redds): Does monitoring these matter? They were mapped in the LF reach in 2003. We’re extending that down into the rest of the CRE in 2004. We may need to just go with those data in terms of mapping. If there is a compelling reason why we need to map these redds over multiple years during the experimental flows, please let us know what it is. So we’re OK with zeroing out the mapping component of project A.15 in 2005, and suggest that we may want to zero it out in 2006 as well. 

GC Wildlands BAHG r

GCMRC questionbe preparational methods

105 - L. 64 (A.15, Determination of the Suppression Mechanism): This portion of project A.15 

is a whole different story. It is critical to determine the mechanism for mortality of trout under these experimental flows. If the program hasn’t figured that out by spending $125,000 on it in 2004, then we need to have funds available in 2005 to do it. We can’t push this one off to 2006. 

GC Wildlands BAHG re

GCMRC questionnext TWthat expmay be 

106 - In the workplan, these two elements of project A.15 should be split into two separate projects. We don’t see any good reason why they were combined. 

GC Wildlands See com

107 - Project A.16. Is this just another aspect of project A.8? GCRG See com

duplicate

108 - L. 65 (A.16, foodbase impacts of fluct. flows): We’re OK with zeroing this out for 2005. It seems like the program needs to put its energies into developing the core monitoring program for aquatic foodbase, and given limited funds, we need to lean towards direct effects monitoring associated with the experimental purposes. 

GC Wildlands BAHG r

a thorouthe food including are beinfoodbasTWG undifferent togetherprepared presentaon these TWG me

109 - Project A. 17. Can this project be done cheaper? Who is working on this? (WWWWH) GCRG Probab

contract

110 - A17 Mechanical Removal: If outsourced labor doubles from 2005 to 2006 I would expect a decrease in some other costs (GCMRC costs?) to accomplish this work. I’m not clear on what the category “outsourced science/labor” actually represents. Perhaps this could be clarified somewhere in the document. 

AZGF 
Comments From 

111 - L. 66 (A.17, Mechanical Removal): We think the program needs to take a hard look at whether this project continues past two years. It is extremely expensive, and although it appears to be effective in removing trout, what we really need to see is whether it is effective in improving humpback chub survival, recruitment and/or growth rates. We should also be clear that this is no longer an experiment if we continue it into 2005 and beyond – at that point it becomes a management action and it should be evaluated and budgeted as such.So where do we find the project that includes the effects monitoring portion of this project? Will the Status 

and Trends of Downstream Fish project pick them up? Is the program measuring growth rates of HBC in the treatment reach to see if removal of trout is decreasing competition? The importance of this project needs to be evaluated in the context of all the other actions that can or should be taken to improve HBC, and all the expenditures for HBC should reflect their relative importance in the overall effort to improve the situation of the fish. 

GC Wildlands TWG wi

continuaat Jan mIn FY07over), ththis worapproprrecovery 

112 - L. 67 & 68 (A.18, RBT diet and predation of Native fish): Isn’t this important? If we think we will know everything we need to know about trout predation by 2005, then zeroing this out in 2005 is OK and we should zero it out in 2006 as well. But if we are just zeroing it out in 2005 to save money, then we have a real problem with spending $586,000 on the mechanical removal and not looking at all at the trout predation question. 

GC Wildlands BAHG w

diet quethis part work? Wcompletthen addFY05 m

113 - Project A. 18. restore funding for this project - critical aspect of the experiment. (WWWWH) 

GCRG See com

114 - L. 97 (A.19, Captive Breeding Program): If this is a relic, and now we have a genetic refugia project for HBC instead, then just pull this out. 

GC Wildlands At the A

decision 40K in Fmanagerefugium have 10when pFY05 womesh explan and fixed in fplan. Alcarried fshow it a
Comments From 

budget amoney. Note froFY07, (bthere is be coveapproprrecovery discussiclearly n

115 - A19 ( and others) HBC actions: Several HBC project descriptions need to be cleaned up, esp. regarding genetics planning. Perhaps the HBC ad-hoc can help. 

AZGF OK 

116 - L. 157 (A.19): The project name in the workplan seems misleading. We gather that this project is not about maintaining the genetic material specifically from the 30-mile aggregation. Why do we think this will cost $100,000 in 2005 when only $40,000 was budgeted for 2004? What is FWS’s role in this project? 

GC Wildlands 

See the about clplanning 

117 - Project A. 19. I thought AGF/FWS were going to fund this one. Cut? (WWWWH) GCRG FWS is 

manage

118 - L. 98 (Pop. Genetics of HBC): If this is done, then pull it out. But isn’t this the work that the Douglases were doing? And isn’t it scheduled to be completed in 2004 or 2005? 

GC Wildlands BAHG: 

119 - Project A.20. I can’t see how this will help. Cut (WWWWH) GCRG BAHG d120 - L. 160 (A.20, HBC translocation to tribs): We need more details to help us understand what will be done for $50,000 in 2005. 

GC Wildlands More de

included FY05 wo

121 - Project A. 21. Perhaps the only additional HBC action that needs to be implemented. Should add the task of further development of HBC ad-hoc recommendations. (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

122 - L. 162 (A.21, Dam Ops Exp.): This project was not intended to be a project to plan experiments over a multi-year period. In 2004, planning is appropriate. In 2005 and beyond, there should be additional experimentation involving dam operations to benefit humpback chub being implemented. Any funds for planning should be minimal in out years, but we need to anticipate additional experiments, potentially starting as soon as 2005. 

GC Wildlands The proj

the work the MATcompletintent of spread $planningsounds 
Comments From 

like to kndescriptconform project dplan and down/clacurrent p

123 - Project A. 22 cut. impossible goals (WWWWH) GCRG 124 - A.22 HBC actions – scientific/recreation impact: For this and other projects that will be going out for competitive bid, I suspect the amount allocated may be insufficient. Check your math on the % outsourced. It is hard to know what the cost will be for a project when the scope of work is not clear. Most other planning type projects were flagged with cost estimates of $50,000 (HBC actions, think this was estimated by the HBC ad-hoc). 

AZGF Review 

and fundPlease cdoes noone prop

125 - Project A.23. cut. Should be integrated with downstream fish monitoring (WWWWH) GCRG 126 - L. 168 (A.23, fish monitoring below Diamond Crk): Why isn’t this already incorporated into A.9? Why isn’t the $10,000 coming from the LCRMSCP for this identified under available funds? If that $10,000 doesn’t have to come out of power revenues, more power revenues are available for another project. 

GC Wildlands BAHG w

pilot proFY04 widevelop protocolThe plan from LC25K from 

127 - Project A. 24: monitoring fish diseases and parasites. cut. Should be integrated with downstream fish monitoring. Does the suggestion that 04 funds be rolled into 05 mean that 05 does not need to identify funds for this project, since it will be using 04 funds? (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

128 - L. 170 (A.24: monitoring fish diseases and parasites): This needs more detail in the workplan. What are we going to get for $55,000? Can we piggyback this monitoring on other projects for some cost savings? 

GC Wildlands 

129 - A24 HBC Action – disease and parasites: If the plan is to spend about $5,000 in salary to issue an RFP in 2004, for about $100,000 of work to be done in 2005, I think the budget should show that, and not assume carry-forward from one year to the next. It makes it hard to consider the whole package, and there is a fear that $50,000 might be approved for year 1, but not for year 2, and the work won’t get done. This might make it hard to balance the budget for FY2005 and for FY2006, but lets make it as transparent as possible. 

AZGF 

130 - Project A.25. cut. Funds for this effort should come from another source (WWWWH) GCRG 
Comments From 

131 - A25 HBC Action LCR watershed management Plan: AMP needs to seek clarification on whether this is to be covered by AMP funds, within the funding cap, or whether it is a BOR obligation. BOR says all compliance activities are to be funded by AMP. I think this is an important issue and needs to be fully discussed in the AMWG. 

AZGF 

132 - L. 169, 175, 176: We question the decision to incorporate these into the LCR Watershed Management Plan project. It loads too much into a single project. Also the budget for this project is probably unrealistic – too low. If these projects are kept separate, they can be accomplished individually over a number of years. 

GC Wildlands 

133 - Pg. 101, Project A.25 LCR Watershed Management Plan: Back in the mid 90s (1994-1995?) Reclamation provided the Navajo Nation with funding to develop a LCR Watershed Management Plan. The Navajo Nation then subcontracted with SWCA –Salt Lake City Office to develop the management plan. The TWG has never seen or reviewed the LCR Watershed Management Plan developed by the Navajo Nation for this program. CREDA would like to know the status of that plan, when the TWG will be given a chance to review that plan, and whether this project proposed for FY05 is a duplication of effort. CREDA recommends delaying the funding for this project until these questions are sufficiently addressed. 

CREDA 

134- L. 171 (A.25, LCR plan): Given the projects that have been combined into this one, it is unrealistic to think that it can be accomplished in a single year, and for $100,000. GCMRC and BOR need to have discussions with FWS ASAP to determine the lead for this project. 

GC Wildlands 

135 - L. 172 (A.26, LCR, Mainstem Pop. Est. for HBC): Can we get a sense of how the $200,000 figure was arrived at for this project for 2005? What does GCMRC estimate will go into conducting a concurrent assessment? 

GC Wildlands 

136 - Project A. 26. cut. Don’t we have monitoring programs doing this already? (WWWWH) GCRG 137 - Project A.27. ? Huh? GCRG 138 - Project A.28. Shouldn’t this be done before maintaining a refugia? (WWWWH) GCRG 139 - L. 174 (A.28, genetics Management Plan): Has this been folded into the genetics refugium project? It would be unwise to proceed with removal of fish to a refugium without a genetics management plan. If GCMRC is not the appropriate lead on this, then GCMRC and BOR need to have the discussions with FWS to determine who is the appropriate lead. 

GC Wildlands 

140 - Project A.29. incomplete budget table. (WWWWH) GCRG 141- Project A29: This appears to be the same as Project A12. AZGF 142 - DASA – Is this effort an extension of the Remote Sensing Initiative? There is no mention in the DASA description regarding cooperation with participating scientists. The concern here is that these products are being developed independently of the ongoing monitoring efforts without input from cooperating scientists. There needs to be a well defined need for collecting 

GCRG 
Comments From 

these expensive products other than it can be collected. The argument is made that these remotely sensed products decrease the expense and impact of more intensive ground-based operations. However, these products are also extremely expensive and invasive (over flights at 300ft AGL are unquestionably invasive). 143 - Project A.30.a IF there is not a flight in 05, why fund it? Should we just request 490,000 in 06? If part of this is intended to keep staff on during the “off” year, why not just identify that component as put the acquisition as a request in 06. identifying funding in 05 for 06 seems weird. (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

144 - L. 140 (A.30.a: airborne remote sensing): If 2005 is not an overflight year, why is there a $200,000 project budget? 

GC Wildlands 

145 - L. 107 (A.30, b,c: channel Mapping): We see $10,000 in the workplan for A.30.c that hasn’t been identified as coming from another project – is this zeroed out completely or do we need to find $10,000 for it somewhere? 

GC Wildlands 

146 - Project A.30.b Additional costs for LIDAR acquisition are not identified in A.3. (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

147 - Project A.32.b. (WWWWH) GCRG 148 - L. 108: If it is done, take it out. GC Wildlands 149 - L. 109: Same comment as line 86. GC Wildlands 150 - L. 161 (TCD): Isn’t this a BOR project? Can we get confirmation that it would be funded from BOR appropriated dollars, restricted for this use? 

GC Wildlands 

151 - L. 163 (Sed & Turbidity Augmentation): Is there no contingency for following through with sediment and turbidity augmentation actions should the feasibility study indicate that they are 

feasible and AMWG recommends them to the Secretary? 

GC Wildlands 

152 - L. 156, 158, 159: If these are not projects that are going to be done through GCMRC, they don’t need to be included as line items in the budget. 

GC Wildlands 

153 - Line 165. N/A. 10. Bright Angel Non-native Fish Removal – Is the dollar amount NPS committed to the program split between the 3 years of funding? 

NPS-GRCA 

154 - L. 165: Identify these as restricted NPS appropriated funds, only available for this project. 

GC Wildlands 

155 - Line 166. N/A. 11. Tributary Non-Native Fish Survey, Removal – This project is being funded in a similar fashion as #10. Dollar amounts for this project need to be included as contributions to the program. 

NPS-GRCA 

156 - L. 166: If we include the Bright Angel non-native fish removal project above with a $167,000 price tag, does the $0 budget line item here mean that NPS is still looking for 

GC Wildlands 
Comments From 

appropriated dollars for this? Please be clear about it. Perhaps even budget in the amount it would take to do the project. 157 - L. 167: This project is already included elsewhere. Don’t list it in two places. GC Wildlands GCMRC CULTURAL PROGRAM COMMENTS 158 - Project B.1 Core Monitoring of Cultural Resources: CREDA questioned the timing of this project, especially with the commitment of the Center to develop a comprehensive core monitoring plan for TWG review by January ‘04 and to have it finalized and ready for AMWG approval by April ‘04. The Center has not provided a satisfactory response to CREDA’s initial comment regarding this project; therefore, CREDA still questions the need to fund this project in FY05 unless the Center envisions that cultural resource core monitoring will not be a part of 

the comprehensive core monitoring plan develop in FY ‘04. CREDA does not see the need for this project if the proposed scope of work will be accomplished in FY ‘04. 

CREDA 

159 - Project B.2 Development of Geomorpholoy Process Model for Predicting Erosion of Cultural Resources: This project is proposed to be a three-year effort, exceeding $420,000. CREDA questions whether this project will be able to provide the definitive answer to archaeological site erosion that it proposes. Perhaps the funding is better spent on the treatment of archaeological sites and the retrieval of scientific data, rather than the development of predictive models that tell us that archaeological sites will erode when water runs down slope over these sites. This program should be dropped from the budget until a more complete justification is established. 

CREDA 

160 - L. 118 (B.2): The ability of this project to develop an accurate and useful predictive model seems somewhat in doubt. What indications do we have that this will be a good use of funds? Should the program be spending its dollars on treating the sites that already need work instead of developing predictive capability if funds are limited? 

GC Wildlands 

161 - L. 114 (Tribal Outreach Workshop): If it is done, take it out. GC Wildlands 162 - Line 86. Cultural database plan – In previous versions of the budget for FY04, there was a dollar figure associated with this task. Please indicate what funds were reprogrammed to IT and include a description within the IT discussion. If these funds were to be dedicated to developing database layers related to tribal monitoring, it may be more appropriate to categorize them under the cultural program. 

NPS-GRCA 

163 - L. 86 (Cultural Database Plan): What is this? Is there a description in the workplan anywhere? If you want a placeholder in the budget, then at least describe what the placeholder is. 

GC Wildlands 

164 - L. 89 (Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation): Same comment as line 86. GC Wildlands 165 - Line 89. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation -- The dollar figure from previous NPS-GRCA 
Comments From 

FY04 budgets should be shown. We believe the funds were actually reprogrammed to the FIST sponsored eolian transport studies. Please clarify. Additionally, why is this not placed in the sociocultural program? If “cultural resources” only indicate ethnobotanical remains or physical remains (not eligible for listing on the National Register) then clearly state that in the title. 166 - Lines 115 and 116. N/A, N/A, 5 - 6. In previous versions of the FY04 budget, dollar figures were provided for these two line items. Please provide an explanation of where these dollars went. Did these funds also go to the eolian transport study, if so indicate in both areas. 

NPS-GRCA 

167 - L. 115: Same comment as line 86. GC Wildlands 168 - L. 116: Same comment as line 86. GC Wildlands 169 - L. 117: If it is done, take it out. GC Wildlands 170 - Line 119. Evaluation & Plan for Cultural Monitoring -- A brief description of what this would include would be useful. Is this program intended to satisfy the legal requirements of NHPA Section 106 as stated in the 1994 Programmatic Agreement? Will this program satisfy the requirements of GCPA for all cultural (heritage) resources? 

NPS-GRCA 

171 - L. 70 (B.5, Impacts to Concessionaires, anglers from exp. flows): We agree with postponing this until 2006 if it will be paid out of power revenues. The program may want to consider recommending to the Secretary that NPS seek appropriated dollars to do this in 2005.

GC Wildlands 

172 - L. 71 (changes to camping beaches from exp.flows): Same comments as line 69. Is this a core monitoring issue? 

GC Wildlands 

LOGISTICS 173 - Project C.1 Coordination and Support Program-Logistics Operations: CREDA questions why the Center cannot project the funding allocations for logistics operations in FY ‘05 and FY ‘06. The Center has been in operation for more than eight years and should be able to provide the TWG and AMWG with anticipated projected amounts for these out years based on what was actually spent over the last eight years. 

CREDA 

174 - L. 142: If logistics are being allocated to specific projects, don’t give it a separate and blank line in the budget. But we do need to examine how to cut down logistic costs within this program. Can we get some information on how many trips we estimate will go out? How many 

boats per trip? (Maybe that could be indicated project by project.) How many trips combine two or more projects? Can more trips be combined? Do the trips use volunteer assistance? Can we increase the use of volunteers? 

GC Wildlands 

175 - Project C.1. we should have budget #’s identified with this spreadsheet – even though they are distributed to each project. This is a critical part of the program (WWWWH) 

GCRG 
Comments From 

176 - Project C.2. and C.3. These both seem like aspects of the survey operation, why not combine? Also, what are the effects of additional experimental flow work on these projects? More detail is needed here. Also, integration of historical datasets should not be implemented until the control network is completed. Survey operations should focus on science support. (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

177 - L. 106 (C.3, Control Network): How dire is this need? What is being done in 2005 that is in addition to 2004 that increases the budget by $64,000? Can any of it be deferred? If we do it now instead of later, will we save $ in 2006 and beyond due to increased accuracy? Is doing this worth not collecting the data that we can’t collect due to cuts in other projects? 

GC Wildlands 

178 - L. 138 (Survey Ops): We need to know how much of this line item is allocated to each of the projects identified. 

GC Wildlands 

INFORMATION OUTREACH 179 - Line 141, D.1 Please explain in greater detail what this money will be used for. The current draft work plan does not suffice. 

NPS-GRCA 

180 - Project D.1. I’m not understanding why this project is needed if these elements are already covered by the library, database and systems administration. Need more info on how this project is different/needed/integrated (WWWWH) 

GCRG 

181 - L. 141: Why now? As with the Library...the program can’t be spending $100,000 on the website while we are cutting core monitoring. And we haven’t had a SCORE report for four years. We need to pare this line item down. 

GC Wildlands 

182 - L. 137 (Library): Why the increase? The program may have to delay some of the scanning project to keep costs down here. We can’t be spending $99,000 on the library while we are cutting core monitoring. 

GC Wildlands 

183 - L. 139 (Systems Admin): Increased disk storage should be a priority, but the increased web presence and public accessibility to information may need to be deferred. How much could be saved if this were to happen? 

GC Wildlands 

ADMINISTRATION 184 - Nearly 1/3 of the available funds for the program are being utilized by GCMRC for Administration/Technical Support. The intent of the program was to do research and monitoring and it appears that a large portion of the budget is going to administrative support and not to the resources of concern. We understand that the AMP is a complex program. However, it does not appear that internal cost-saving measures have been creatively utilized. Please indicate where GCMRC is attempting to cut, reduce or save costs in regards to administrative/technical support. 

NPS-GRCA 
Comments From 

184 - As we mentioned earlier, we are concerned to see nearly 1/3 of available funds devoted to Administrative and Support services. Are any of these items also budgeted for in the specific program areas? The comments in this section do not address what the funds are being expended on, nor do they represent a full accounting of the costs associated with administering the program. Much more detail is needed in this section of the budget to explain the $2 million 

plus dollars being used as base costs for GCMRC. Please indicate where and how GCMRC is saving money. 

NPS-GRCA 

185 - Line 41. Reclamation Administration – it seems that this program funds BOR’s regional archaeologist. Is this correct or does it also include travel for meetings with tribes and PA representatives? PA representatives have requested meeting more than once a year. Will this budget allow for additional meetings? 

NPS-GRCA 

186 - With CPI adjustments to administrative and management costs, this portion is going to consume a larger and larger percentage of the available funds over time. The program needs to develop a strategy to ensure that administrative costs don’t strangle the program. It needs to find more efficiencies in administration and management, expand the available funding, or both. 

GC Wildlands 

187 - Lines 72-74 E.1, D.2, C.2, 19 – 21. -- Why are these additional costs that are not automatically covered under GCMRC’s day to day administrative costs? 

NPS-GRCA 

188 - L. 72 (Admin. support for exp. flows): Whose administrative support? GCMRC?Since we have recommended in general terms that the Experimental Management Actions be incorporated into the program areas under Science Activities, implementation of that recommendation would eliminate the need for this line item. If it remains a line item, then we need a detailed breakdown of which of the general administrative support activities identified in E.1 are being allocated to Experimental Management Actions. 

GC Wildlands 

189 - L. 73 (Techinical support for exp. Flows): Essentially same comment as line 72. GC Wildlands 190 - L. 74 (Technical Support/survey equip. for exp. Flows): Essentially same comment as line 72, but with an additional question – what equipment would we be upgrading and why does it need to be upgraded? 

GC Wildlands 

191 - L. 112 (unsolicited proposals): Same comment as line 86. Also, we question why we have this for sociocultural but not the other program areas. ***Please restore some funds for unsolicited proposals 

GC Wildlands 

192 - L. 113 (AMWG, TWG requests): Same comment as line 86. Also, we question why we have this for sociocultural but not the other program areas. 

GC Wildlands 

193 - L. 128 (Admin Ops): We need a breakdown of these costs. GC Wildlands 194 - L. 129 (Program Planning and Management): Why aren’t these integrated into other line GC Wildlands 
Comments From 

items? If these are salaries and travel costs that can’t be associated with science projects, or with TWG and AMWG meetings, what are they? $282,000 worth is not an insignificant amount.195 - L. 131 (Independent Reviews): How is this broken down? How much for the SAB, how much for peer review of proposals, how much for peer review of reports, and how much for PEP panels? 

GC Wildlands 

196 - L. 132 (Public Outreach): This isn’t even in the workplan. Perhaps it is not a GCMRC function, in which case it should be in the BOR portion. But someone has to take this on. It should be contracted out, and may even be doable for less than $50,000. 

GC Wildlands 

197 - L. 173 (AMWG Outreach Plan for HBC): This needs to be part of E.5. But as the comment to line 132 already indicated, project E.5 seems to be MIA. That needs to be rectified. 

GC Wildlands 

MISC. COMMENTS 198 - The reference to Davis et al. (2003) is not in the References Cited section. GCRG