- 1 -

Budget Ad Hoc Group 

Report to Technical Work Group 

June 26, 2007 

The Budget Ad Hoc Group has met by conference call five times to discuss the FY 08 budget and 

workplan. The draft budget is largely a continuation of projects initiated in FY 07. Several new projects 

have been developed, however, and they are provided for TWG consideration. Only one of the projects 

received consensus by BAHG members, and there were only 5 BAHG members present at the final 

conference call. Without a majority of BAHG members present for this deliberation, and thus failing the 

quorum required of TWG meetings (BAHG being an ad hoc of the TWG), these projects are provided 

without a clear recommendation from the BAHG. 

Project 1: Sponsor—Mike Berry, Reclamation 

PROJECT TITLE AND ID: D.4. Glen and Grand Canyon Treatment Plan Implementation 

General Project Description: In consultation with Grand Canyon NPS, the Arizona SHPO and the 

remainder of the PA signatories, Reclamation completed a scope-of-work for the development of a 

treatment plan for the cultural resources of Grand Canyon. This work was completed in 2007 under a 

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit agreement with Utah State University. An analogous set of 

treatment plan recommendations was completed in FY06 (based on FY04 and FY05 funding) by the 

Navajo Nation Archaeological Department. Treatment of individual properties may include in situ 

preservation measures, nature and extent testing, full data recovery or additional 

documentation/recordation. The determination of appropriate treatment will be based on consultation 

with NPS, the Arizona SHPO, the Hualapai THPO, the Navajo THPO, the tribal PA signatories and other 

Southwestern tribal. This consultation will take place during FY07 with treatment plan implementation 

scheduled to begin in FY08 under an MOA among Reclamation, NPS, the Arizona SHPO, the Hualapai 

THPO, and the Navajo THPO. 

Project Goals and Objectives: 

• Implementation of the first year of the treatment plan under an MOA to achieve Reclamation’s 

compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

• Continued Government-to-Government consultation with tribal councils regarding the treatment plan. 

Expected Results: It is estimated that data recovery or other mitigation measures will be accomplished at 

four to six sites in FY08 following the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Historic 

Preservation and guidance of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Detailed and comprehensive 

reports will be prepared on consultant activities, results and recommendations. 

Budget: FY08 = $500,000 
- 2 -

FUNDING 

HISTORY 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor 

99,000 250,000 250,000 70,000 500,000

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- --

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- --

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- --

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- --

Subtotal 99,000 250,000 250,000 70,000 500,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (29%) -- -- -- -- --

Project Total *99,000 **250,000 **250,000 ***70,000 ****500,000

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- --

*Funds obligated to Navajo Nation Archaeological Department for Glen Canyon treatment plan 

preparation. 

**Funds obligated to Utah State University for Grand Canyon treatment plan preparation. 

***IA for NPS support of emergency mitigation project. 

****If the NPS cost-share proposal (Project D.5) is accepted, the treatment plan cost will be reduced to 

$405,000 as a consequence of financial and in-kind NPS contributions. 

Project 2: Sponsor—Mike Berry, Reclamation and Lisa Leap, NPS GRCA 

PROJECT TITLE AND ID: D.5. Grand Canyon National Park Service Cost-Share Proposal 

General Project Description: Grand Canyon National Park Service (GRCA) archaeologists have been 

an integral part of the GCDAMP compliance program from its inception. Their continued participation 

and support is critical to the success of compliance and research efforts. This proposal is intended to 

clarify and stabilize the role of the National Park Service within the context of the GCDAMP. 

Project Goals and Objectives: GRCA archaeologists will 1) assist in and provided necessary continuity 

to Reclamation’s multi-year treatment plan implementation, 2) assist GCMRC in the development of 

cultural monitoring protocols and 3) coordinate efforts 1) and 2) with the Colorado River Management 

Plan (CRMP). 

Expected Results: The development of a meaningful and replicable protocol for the long-term 

monitoring requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GRPA). Active participation in excavation 

of endangered historic properties in conjunction with Reclamation’s treatment plan. 

Budget: FY08 = $142,000 
- 3 -

FUNDING HISTORY 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor 

-- -- -- 137,500 142,000

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- --

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- --

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- --

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- --

Subtotal 

-- 

-- -- 137,500 142,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (29%) -- -- -- -- --

Project Total -- -- -- 137,500 *142,000

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- 100% 100%

* In exchange for this funding, GRCA will provide two river trips (one each for monitoring and treatment 

plan support), 1520 hours toward the Reclamation treatment plan, 1360 hours toward GCMRC 

monitoring protocol development/implementation, $86,000 in related monitoring activities, $5000 toward 

completion of the Historic Preservation Plan and $261,180 per annum (through 2011) for excavation of 

ten sites in Grand Canyon. This funding will include the $70,000 presently included under the GCMRC 

budget as Task 2. Implement Pilot Monitoring Protocols for Geomorphic Change Detection and Erosion 

Control Effectiveness Monitoring in Project CUL 11.R1.08.

Project 3: Sponsors—Mary Barger, WAPA and Ted Kennedy, GCMRC 

PROJECT TITLE and ID: BIO 1.R4.08: Impacts of Various Flow Regimes on the Aquatic Food 

Base 

GCDAMP Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. 

Start Date 

2008 

End Date 

2010 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Theodore Kennedy, Ph.D., Aquatic Biologist, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Three sites (Glen Canyon ~river mile (RM) -15–0, Diamond Creek ~RM 225, and Little Colorado River 

confluence ~RM61). 

Project Goals/Tasks 

This project will be done in close association with research project BIO 1.R1.08, which will quantify, on a 

monthly basis, the density and production of basal resources (i.e., algae, terrestrial leaf litter, etc.) and 
- 4 -

invertebrates, and will determine the amount of energy that is available to support production of fishes 

(e.g., monitoring). In addition, short-term experiments should be conducted to obtain a greater 

understanding of the responses of the aquatic food base to specific aspects of different flow regimes. The 

primary goal of such experiments would be to verify the range of flow magnitudes and flow fluctuations 

that could occur without significantly impacting the long-term sustainability of the aquatic food base. This 

would, in turn, help identify ways to accommodate power generation and water storage purposes at Glen 

Canyon Dam while protecting downstream aquatic resources. 

Short-term experiments would be conducted over the course of several years in order to capitalize on the 

availability of specific hydrological conditions. During experiments, measurements would be made of 

algal and invertebrate standing crop, together with levels of invertebrate drift. To the extent possible, data 

collection methods should be consistent with the methods described in BIO 1.R1.08. Aspects of 

hydrographs that should be examined include fluctuation levels, ramp rates, and minimum flow levels. In 

addition, it may be desirable to evaluate effects of the proposed flow regime on fish (especially trout) 

activity levels, foraging success, and survival as related to fluctuation patterns and food conditions (e.g., 

concentrations and composition of the drift). 

 

Benthic production is the source for food base items in the drift, so it is important to assess both how the 

source of drifting material and the quantity of drifting material is affected by dam operations. These 

measurements should be made in three locations, Glen Canyon, Diamond Creek, and the confluence with 

the Little Colorado River. The effects of dam operations on benthic production and drift are likely very 

different in the tailwater relative to downstream reaches. The food base program (BIO 1.R1.08) will 

continue to make monthly measurements of benthic production and drift at Glen Canyon and Diamond 

Creek which will provide an excellent set of baseline data that can be used to compare results from 

experimental dam operations. The Little Colorado River confluence should be included in addition to the 

sampling at Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek because of its relevance to the availability of food for 

humpback chub. Adding sampling at the Little Colorado River confluence will significantly increase the 

cost of this research because it will require three full sets of sampling equipment and a downstream river 

trip. 

The objectives that are addressed by this project are: 

• Quantify the abundance of the aquatic food base on substrates in response to changes in the flow 

regime 

• Identify composition and quantity of drifting organic matter and invertebrates in response to 

changes in the flow regime 

• Determine the effects of ramp rates on invertebrate productivity, standing crop, and drift 

• Determine the effects on drift of short-term 5,000-cfs flow fluctuations during a fall steady flow 

experiment 

• Determine effects of short-term flow reductions and subsequent (e.g., 2 hours later) increase in 

flow on drift rates 

Need for Project 

The food base in any aquatic system is an important factor that directly affects fish community dynamics 

including abundance, reproduction and recruitment, condition, and even distribution. Much of the diet of 

trout and humpback chub consists of food items that have been suspended and are drifting in the water 

column (Valdez and Ryel 1995). The drifting food base in the Colorado River ecosystem is generally 

composed of freely floating aquatic invertebrates and Cladophora glomerata (a long filamentous green 

algae) that are available to fish for consumption. Primary production at Lees Ferry is dominated by 

Cladophora which acts as a substrate for various types of epiphytic diatoms which provide a food source 
- 5 -

for chironomids and simuliids (aquatic insect larvae) and for the shrimp-like amphipod, Gammarus 

lacustris (Pinney 1991). The nutritional value of Cladophora to fish is enhanced by the presence of lipidrich epiphytic diatoms, and diatoms have been shown to provide an important source of energy for 

rainbow trout (Leibfried 1988). Studies indicate that the abundance of invertebrates used as food by trout 

and other fishes in the Colorado River ecosystem is generally proportional to the abundance of 

Cladophora. 

In order to understand the current condition of the aquatic food base, measurements of epiphytic diatoms, 

aquatic invertebrates, and algal abundance in the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam 

should be conducted. GCMRC’s food base monitoring program (BIO 1.R1.08) would largely fill this need 

on a monthly basis. However, the response of these benthic and drifting resources to various flow 

management regimes remains uncertain. Thus, this research project should be conducted to identify the 

responses of the benthic and drifting food base to various aspects of the proposed flow regime. This adds 

an important component to the food base research program under BIO 1.R1.08 which may help to identify 

flow regimes likely to contribute to the recovery of humpback chub populations in Grand Canyon. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways, and the rate of flux among them, that link lower 

trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

Additional SSQs addressed: 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbity) and dam operations? 

SSQ 1-6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as growth, 

condition, and body composition (e.g., lipids), correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Under Research Project BIO 1.R1.08—Aquatic Food Base, four broad tasks would be performed: (1) 

quantify basal resources using a carbon budget framework, (2) determine important trophic pathways 

linking basal resources to fish, (3) estimate fish density and production, and (4) model bioenergetics and 

the trophic basis of production calculations. We will work closely with this project, relying on much of 

their infrastructure and capabilities, to estimate primary and secondary biomass, productivity, and drift. 

This project builds upon the aquatic food base program by carrying more intensive observations during 

various experimental flow regimes with the intent of distinguishing the effects of various flow changes 

compared to “base” conditions. 

Information Needs Addressed 

This project focuses on quantifying food availability (drift) in the Colorado River ecosystem in Glen and 

Grand Canyons due to experimental changes in flow from Glen Canyon Dam. The distribution of multiple 

sampling sites over multiple years will allow a number of research information and core monitoring 

information needs to be directly addressed, as enumerated below: 

Primary information needs addressed: 
- 6 -

RIN: 1.1. What are the fundamental trophic interactions in the aquatic ecosystem? 

RIN: 2.1.2. Quantify sources of mortality for humpback chub < 51 mm in rearing habitats in the 

LCR and mainstem and how these sources of mortality are related to dam operations. 

RIN 12.9.2. What is the best combination of dam operations and other management actions to 

achieve the vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the GCDAMP management objectives? 

Other information needs addressed: 

RIN 1.4. What is the current carbon budget for the Colorado River ecosystem? 

CMIN 1.2.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic organisms between 

Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water 

temperature, and light regime. 

CMIN 1.3.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary producers below the 

Paria River. 

General Methods 

Quantify algae production 

The food base project has been successful in verifying that algae/macrophyte production in the Colorado 

River can be measured using open-system measurements. This technique involves constructing an oxygen 

budget for a reach of river, where all inputs (algae production, air-water gas exchange) and outputs 

(respiration) of oxygen are accounted for. 

• Primary production and ecosystem respiration will be quantified using whole stream metabolism 

calculations: Use diel changes in dissolved oxygen concentration, a byproduct of algal 

photosynthesis, to determine rates of algae production for mile long reaches of the river. Use 

nighttime sags in dissolved oxygen concentration to determine ecosystem respiration, a measure of 

basal resource (both leaf litter and algae) consumption. If quantity of carbon consumed during 

respiration exceeds quantity of carbon produced by algal photosynthesis, this indicates 

allochthonous inputs may be an important basal resource fueling the aquatic food web. Data 

collected monthly at Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek and four times per year along the river 

corridor. 

Quantify benthic biomass/drift 

• Standing stocks: the standing stock of algae and organic matter will be quantified using a Hess 

sampler and by scraping algae off rocks. These data will provide a measure of basal resource 

availability within each reach. Collections will occur monthly at Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek 

and four times per year at the confluence with the Little Colorado River. 

• Invertebrate density, production, and growth measurements. Sample all benthic habitats (i.e., 

cobble bars, cliff faces, boulders, talus slopes, sandy bottom, etc.) to quantify density of 

invertebrates. Habitat specific density estimates will be made using shoreline and bed 

classification data from the Physical Science and Modeling Program. Growth measurements for 
- 7 -

the most common invertebrates (e.g., New Zealand mudsnails, Gammarus, chironomids, 

simuliids) in controlled chambers. Production of invertebrates will be calculated using density 

estimates coupled with growth measurements. Invertebrate density will be estimated monthly at 

Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek and four times per year at downstream locations. Growth 

measurements will be taken four times per year at Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek. 

• Transported organic matter and invertebrates: The amount of organic matter and invertebrates 

transported into and out of each reach will determine the extent to which downstream reaches are 

linked to upstream processes. Depth integrated water samples will be used to quantify transported 

organic matter and invertebrates. 

Products/Reports 

Publications 

Tentative subjects for publications include: 

• Response of primary production and secondary production of invertebrates in the Colorado River 

to various flow regimes from Glen Canyon Dam. 

• Affect of various flow regimes from Glen Canyon Dam on the availability of drifting food base 

for humpback chub and trout. 

Reports 

A final report summarizing major results and recommendations will be submitted at the close of the 

project. 

Monitoring Protocols 

A report describing potential monitoring protocols will be submitted at the close of the project. Some 

potential monitoring tools that will be evaluated during the course of the project include: 

• Measurement of primary production and ecosystem respiration using whole stream metabolism 

methods 

• Organic and invertebrate drift measurements 

Budget

We already have four sondes equipped with dissolved oxygen sensors, but would need to purchase two 

additional sondes in order for these measurements to be made simultaneously at Glen Canyon and 

Diamond Creek. The Clark-type dissolved oxygen sensors that we currently using for making these 

measurements can be calibrated with a good degree of precision and accuracy, but the calibration of those 

sensors is only reliable for 5-7 days because the sensors tend to ‘drift’. Optical Dissolved Oxygen sensors 

are a relatively new technology that can be calibrated more accurately and precisely than Clark-type 

sensors, and they hold their calibration for over a month. With the purchase of optical dissolved oxygen 

sensors we will be able to make continuous measurements of algae production, which are more accurate 

and precise, for the duration of any flow experiments. 
- 8 -

We already have all of the equipment needed to make measurements of benthic biomass (i.e., algae, 

invertebrates, terrestrial leaf litter), but we only have one set of this equipment. We will need to purchase 

an additional set of equipment so that these measurements can be simultaneously at both Glen Canyon 

and Diamond Creek. We already have enough wet suits and winches (needed for ponar dredge) to 

accommodate simultaneous sampling at two or three locations. 

BIO 1.R4.08

Impacts of Various Flow Regimes on the Aquatic Food Base (FY08-09) 

Item Purpose Unit Cost Quantity Total 

YSI 6920 Sondes Open-system 

measurements of 

algae production 

$4500 4 $18,000 

YSI ROX Optical 

Dissolved Oxygen 

Probe 

Open-system 

measurements of 

algae production 

$1500 8 $12,000 

Wildco Standard 

Ponar Dredge 

Benthic Biomass $1249 2 $2500 

Benthic Suction 

Sampler 

Benthic Biomass $300 2 $600 

Wildco 

plankton/drift nets 

20 in diameter 

mouth, 5:1 mouthlength ratio, 250 

μm-mesh 

Algae/Leaf 

litter/Invertebrate 

Drift 

$500 2 $1000 

Misc. Supplies Bottles, 

preservative grade 

alcohol, etc. 

$2000 $2000 

Full-time 

technician (GS 7) 

Field and lab work $40,000 (salary 

+ benefits) 

1 $40,000 

River Trip Little Colorado 

River sampling for 

up to 2 months 

$35,000 $35,000 

Subtotal $111,100 

Overhead 

(19.091%) 

$21,210 

Total $132,310 

Sites: Glen Canyon, Diamond Creek, and Little Colorado River confluence 

Project 4: Sponsors—Bill Persons, AGFD and Larry Stevens, GCWC

PROJECT TITLE AND ID: B.x Facilitation Contract 

General Project Description 

This project represents the work assigned to one individual under contract to the Bureau of Reclamation 

to facilitate at Technical Work Group meetings. This person may also assist TWG ad hoc groups in 

completing TWG assignments if the budget allows. 
- 9 -

Project Goals and Objectives 

The facilitator’s primary responsibility is to keep the TWG meetings organized and effective, and help the 

members reach consensus on important issues. The facilitator creates a setting in which all members and 

the public are able to express their views. 

The TWG chair elected from the group will continue to serve, but at no cost. Funds used previously to 

pay the TWG chair will be used to hire an outside facilitator. 

Results 

The facilitator will create an atmosphere in which the members and other participants at TWG meetings 

feel comfortable expressing their individual viewpoints. The facilitator will bring the TWG members to 

consensus on pertinent issues affecting the GCDAMP, help develop meeting agendas and calendars. 

Budget 

FY08 = $23,521 (This funding would be transferred from Project B.4: TWG Chair Reimbursement. 

2008 

USBR Salaries -

USBR Project Related Travel / Training -

USBR Operations/ Supplies -

Outside USBR Science / Labor 23,521 

Project Sub-total 23,521 

DOI Customer Burden (29%) -

Project Total (Gross) 23,521 

Percent Outsourced 100% 

Technical Work Group Facilitator Project 

 I would like the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) to recommend that the 

Technical Work Group (TWG) include a project in the FY08 Workplan and 

Budget to hire a facilitator to help the TWG run meetings, as 

recommended by the Roles ad hoc report (2007). 

 I think recent TWG meetings have been less productive than 

they might have been. I’m not sure what all of the causes are; we 

could clearly have lengthy discussions about this topic, and I believe 

we have. I think we should enlist a trained facilitator to help us 

work more effectively together and achieve resolution on the issues we 

face. Running meetings like the TWG is a difficult task by its 

nature, conflict resolution usually is. However, I think we could 

make a lot more progress if we had help, especially planning agendas 

and running our meetings. 

 I think it would be difficult at this time to replace the TWG 

chair with a facilitator, so I think it would be better to hire a 

facilitator to work with the TWG chair, much as we do at the AMWG, at 

least through FY08. 
- 10 -

 The value of a facilitator to the program would be evaluated by 

the TWG and GCMRC as part of a meeting evaluation process that 

facilitators are taught to use. 

The Roles ad hoc recommended the TWG use a facilitator. (See “Report 

and Recommendations from the Roles Ad Hoc Group to the Secretary’s 

Designee”. April 13, 2007, p. 6) 

(http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/07may22CC/AIF_RolesRpt.pdf) 

 “Utilize facilitation and mediation expertise more 

broadly throughout the AMP. Sophisticated process design, 

facilitation, and mediation expertise is needed for a 

collaborative process to effectively address complex 

controversial issues involving the many diverse interests 

represented on the AMP and that have a long history of 

conflict. Currently the AMWG utilizes a professional 

facilitator for all of its meetings; a professional 

facilitator should be similarly utilized for all TWG 

meetings. In addition, river trips, team building exercises, 

common goal setting, and social interactions should all be 

used to build trust and foster more effective 

collaboration.” 

Some of the things facilitators do to assist a meeting (see: 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitator#Some_of_the_things_facilitat

ors_do_to_assist_a_meeting:) 

(I have bolded some of the things I think the TWG needs help with) 

Helping participants show up prepared to contribute 

Codifying the purpose, scope, and deliverables of the meeting or 

workshop 

Coming prepared with a variety of group facilitation and dialogue 

tools that the facilitator is skilled in and can employ in difficult 

moments 

Keeping the group on track to achieve its goals in the time allotted 

Either providing the group or helping the group decide what ground 

rules it should follow and reminding them of these when they are not 

followed 

Reminding the group of the objectives or deliverables of the meeting 

or session 

Setting up a safe environment where members feel comfortable 

contributing ideas 

Guiding the group through processes designed to help them listen to 

each other and create solutions together 
- 11 -

Asking open-ended questions that stimulate thinking 

Tentatively paraphrasing or repeating verbatim individual 

contributions to confirm understanding and ensure they are heard by 

the whole group 

Tentatively summarizing a recent part of the discussion 

Recording agreements reached in large script on the wall so all can 

see and accept the wording 

Recording the current issues within the group in large script on the 

wall using phrases agreed by the group 

Offering a possible wording for an unspoken question that may 

currently beset the group 

Ensuring the group doesn't settle for the first thing that they can 

agree on because they find it painful to go on disagreeing with each 

other 

Offering opportunities for less forceful members to come forward with 

contributions 

Ensuring that actions agreed by the group to carry out its decisions 

are written up in a large script on the wall for all to see and are 

assigned to individuals 

Evaluating the performance of the meeting to assist in continuous 

improvement.

The only negatives that I can think of with hiring a facilitator are 

the costs. I will not do a cost/benefit analysis, but think a 

facilitator will pay for itself by improved meetings and less time 

spent unproductively. If we can be more productive and cut one 

meeting a year, I think the $25,000 spent would be well worth it. 

It will take some time to get a new facilitator up to speed on the 

issues within the program, but again I think it will be time well 

spent. We need to ensure that the facilitator does not back 

particular opinions voiced in the group, but if they are properly 

trained that should not be a problem.