1

GCMRC Proposed FY 11-12 Biennial Budget and Work Plan 

John Hamill, Chief, GCMRC 

TWG Meeting 

June 29, 2010 

Background 

CPI: 2.5% in FY 11; 3.0% in FY 12 

Hydrograph: 

• MLFF w/ steady flows in September and October; (fall steady flow 

science plan) 

• Possible HFE subject to DOI approval (preliminary science plan 

included) 

• Initiate LTEMP EIS in FY 11 and continue into FY 12 
2

The Preliminary Budget was revised to addresses recommendations 

from DOI and the AMWG to provide additional funding emphasis 

to the following projects: 

• Nonnative fish control (shown in Reclamations portion of the BWP) 

• LTEMP EIS development (shown in Reclamations portion of the 

BWP) 

• Increased aquatic food base, sediment, rainbow trout, and Glen 

Canyon recreation experience monitoring to support the evaluation 

of the proposed HFE Protocol 

• A new study to evaluate rainbow trout use of the Paria River to 

Badger Rapid reach (the reach immediately below Lee’s Ferry) 

• HBC monitoring and translocation above Chute Falls 

• Hydropower economic analyses by WAPA with independent 

oversight by GCMRC 

Additional costs for addressing priorities: 

• FY 11: $1M 

• FY 12: $750K 

General Guidelines for Making Reductions 

• Maintain core monitoring across program goals/resources

o AMWG/DOI (not GCMRC) should determine if scope of 

program should be reduced

• Continue ongoing projects; focus on maintenance of existing 

project 

o Ecosystem modeling

o Sediment modeling

o Remote PIT tag deployment

Except for AMWG/DOI priorities, no new starts

• Past performance 
3

Major funding shifts in the GCMRC FY 11-12 Biennial Work Plan 

• LTEMP EIS Support: $250k FY11 & FY12 

o To be held in reserve by Reclamation 

o Assumes an additional $250K of matching funds from Reclamation 

• Nonnative Fish Suppression Contingency Fund: FY11 $600k, FY12 

$300k 

o To be held in reserve by Reclamation 

o To be allocated in accordance with the Nonnative Fish Environmental 

Assessment 

o If Nonnative fish suppression is not implemented in FY 11/12 redirect 

about $240K to mainstem fish monitoring 

• Redirected GCMRC Budget (to BOR): FY11 $266,385 FY12 $356,519 

• GCMRC recommends that Reclamation redirect the following funds to 

the LTEMP EIS & Nonnative Fish Suppression Contingency Fund 

o 1⁄2 POAHG funding FY11 $28,092, FY12 $28,935 

o All Compliance Documents funding FY11 $50,584, FY12 $52,101 

o 1⁄2 Admin Support for NPS Permitting funding FY11 $60,120, FY12 

$61,924 

o All Nonnative Fish Suppression Contingency Plan funding FY11 

$144,819, FY12 $50,521 

o Canyon Treatment Plan funding $300k FY11 

• Redirected Reclamation Budget: FY11 $583,615, FY12 $193,481 
TABLE 1 GCMRC FY11-12 PROJECT SUMMARIES

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary 

1. Food Base 

Aquatic Food base 

monitoring 

Focus on completion of research, 

reports, PEP review, and 

development of core monitoring 

plan; Monthly drift and benthos 

monitoring at Lees Ferry and 

Diamond Creek only 

Monthly drift and benthos 

monitoring at Lees Ferry and 

Diamond Creek only, 

Implementation of core monitoring 

plan subject to approval 

2. Native Fishes 

LCR Monitoring Repeat FY10 monitoring, revise 

based on analysis of PEP 

recommendations; 

Repeat FY10 monitoring, revise 

based on analysis of PEP 

recommendations; 

Mainstem Monitoring Mainstem monitoring reduced from 

4 to 2 trips (to support nonnative 

control work by BOR) 

Mainstem monitoring restored to 4 

trips 

HBC Translocation & 

Monitoring 

Monitor HBC status and translocate 

fish above Chute Falls; include 

funding for GCMRC involvement 

Monitor HBC status and translocate 

fish above Chute Falls; include 

funding for GCMRC involvement 

Stock Assessment of Native 

Fish 

Continued analysis of fish stock 

data at reduced level; Complete & 

publish ASMR estimate humpback 

chub adult population 

Continued analysis of fish stock data 

at reduced level; No ASMR 

Remote PIT Tag Reading Operate & maintain equipment and 

analyze data with graduate student 

and advisor; Defer expansion of the 

system 

Operate & maintain equipment and 

analyze data with graduate student 

and advisor; Defer expansion of the 

system 

Near Shore Ecology Implement project per work plan; 

Increase logistics funding 

Implement project per work plan; 

Field work ends in October, 2011; 

(FY12) Increase logistics funding 

for October river trip; prepare final 

report 

Mainstem Nonnative Fish 

Control 

$600K identified in BOR budget to 

determine scope of work, if any 

$300K identified in BOR budget to 

determine scope of work, if any 

4
5

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary 

Nonnative Control Plan 

Science Support 

Monitor and synthesize nonnative 

capture data in Open File Report 

and conduct 2011 nonnative 

workshop 

Monitor and synthesize nonnative 

capture data in Open File Report and 

conduct 2012 nonnative workshop 

NEW Evaluation of Trout 

Movement, Natal Origins 

and Alternatives for 

Controlling Rainbow Trout 

Populations 

Investigate RBT movement patterns 

between Paria R. and Badger 

Rapid. 

Investigate RBT movement patterns 

between Paria R. and Badger Rapid 

Biometrics & General 

Analysis (Vice Coggins) 

ASMR, ecosystem modeling, and 

biometric support 

ASMR, ecosystems modeling, and 

biometric support 

3. Extirpated Species 

No funded projects; GCMRC will 

participate in extirpated species ad 

hoc group and razorback 

workgroup 

No funded projects; GCMRC will 

participate in extirpated species ad 

hoc group and razorback workgroup 

4. Rainbow Trout 

Continue monitoring of fish 

community in Lees Ferry reach 

including YOY, juvenile and adult 

RBT monitoring 

Continue monitoring of fish 

community in Lees Ferry reach 

including YOY, juvenile and adult 

RBT monitoring 

5. Kanab Ambersnail 

Continue annual monitoring Continue annual monitoring 

6. Springs / Riparian 

Implement vegetation transect 

monitoring (assumes approval of 

core monitoring plan); Analyze 

2009 imagery for vegetation change

Analyze 2009 imagery and prepare 

report; Defer bird and/or arthropod 

monitoring 

7. Quality of Water 

Lake Powell & Tailwaters Continue monitoring; PEP review; 

Increase emphasis on analysis and 

modeling 

Continue monitoring; Prepare core 

monitoring plan; Implementation of 

core monitoring plan subject to 

approval Increase emphasis on 

analysis and modeling 

Downstream Continue monitoring flow, 

temperature and sediment, etc.; 

PEP review of water quality 

component 

Prepare core monitoring plan; 

Implementation of core monitoring 

plan subject to approval Continue 

monitoring flow, temperature and 

sediment, etc.; 
6

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary 

Modeling support Operate & maintain models; no 

new model development 

Operate & maintain models; no new 

model development 

8. Sediment

Conduct SedTrend core monitoring. 

Monitor sandbar study sites. Report 

on 2009 SedTrend monitoring and 

2009 remote sensing for sandbar 

area. 

Conduct SedTrend core monitoring. 

Report on 2011 SedTrend 

monitoring. 

9. Recreation

Grand Canyon Conduct biennial campsite 

monitoring; Continue river guide 

monitoring; Analyze campsite atlas 

data as part of integrated image 

analysis project; Update & maintain 

campsite atlas on website 

Camp area field monitoring does not 

resume until FY13; Continue river 

guide monitoring; Analyze campsite 

atlas data as part of integrated image 

analysis project; Update & maintain 

campsite atlas on website; Campsite 

PEP review 

Glen Canyon New Project: Evaluate visitor use 

values and satisfaction in the Lees 

Ferry Reach (HFE Experimental 

funds) 

Year 2: Evaluate visitor values and 

satisfaction in the Lees Ferry Reach 

(HFE Experimental funds) 

10. Hydropower 

New Project: Evaluate GTmax 

model as a tool for assessing 

economic costs to hydropower in 

the context of the western electrical 

grid. Prepare report. Serve data via 

website; Annual report 

Use model to assess economic costs 

to hydropower from alternative flow 

regimes; Prepare report. Serve data 

via website; Annual report 

11. Cultural 

Implement pilot monitoring with 

reduced scope (fewer sites, etc), 

which may extend length of project 

Implement pilot monitoring with 

reduced scope (fewer sites, etc), 

which may extend length of project 

12. DASA 

Overflights Contribute $71k to overflight fund Contribute $129k to overflight fund 

Oracle Database Update & maintain Oracle 

database, develop custom data 

management applications, provide 

data modeling, data mining, and 

architecture support 

Update & maintain Oracle database, 

develop custom data management 

applications, provide data modeling, 

data mining, and architecture 

support 

Library Operations / 

Scanning 

Maintain GCMRC library reduced 

to 1⁄2 time position; Defer online 

library system 

Maintain GCMRC library reduced to 

1⁄2 time position; Defer online library 

system 
7

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary 

GIS Support Provide spatial database and 

analysis support to GCMRC 

projects; continue supporting all 

mapping functions, and expand on 

spatial web applications 

Provide spatial database and analysis 

support to GCMRC projects; 

continue supporting all mapping 

functions, and expand on spatial web 

applications 

Integrated Image Analysis & 

Change Detection 

Coordinate analysis of 2009 

imagery; Map & analyze sandbars, 

campsites, backwaters & vegetation 

Final reporting of 2009 imagery; 

Plan for 2013 overflight 

12. Planning 

Ecosystem Modeling Working with senior ecologist, 

continue to update & refine 

ecosystem models, focusing on 

aquatic resources; including 

development of new Lees Ferry 

rainbow trout production model; 

Defer LCR [downstream ecopath 

w/ ecosim] model expansion, 

publication of results, & MATA 

workshop 

Working with senior ecologist, 

continue to update & refine 

ecosystem models, focusing on 

aquatic resources; complete Lees 

Ferry rainbow trout production 

model; Defer LCR [downstream 

ecopath w/ ecosim] model 

expansion, publication of results, & 

MATA workshop 

Knowledge Assessment & 

SCORE Report 

Complete KA & initiate S.C.O.R.E. 

report; use results of KA to support 

ongoing efforts to develop Desired 

Future Conditions, as requested 

Finalize S.C.O.R.E. report; use 

results of KA to support ongoing 

efforts to develop Desired Future 

Conditions, as requested 

HFE Protocol Science Evaluate HFE protocol 

implementation using existing and 

expanded monitoring projects. 

Open file report prepared after each 

HFE 

Evaluate HFE protocol 

implementation using existing and 

expanded monitoring projects. 

Open file report prepared after each 

HFE 

12. Support 

Logistics Base Provide base logistics support to 

field operations 

Provide base logistics support to 

field operations 

Survey & Control Network Provide survey support to GCMRC 

projects (through contract); 

Maintain & expand network as 

needed 

Provide survey support to GCMRC 

projects (through contract); Maintain 

& expand network as needed 

12. Administrative 

Operations Continue to provide administrative 

support 

Continue to provide administrative 

support 

Program Planning & 

Management 

Continue to provide planning & 

management support 

Continue to provide planning & 

management support 
8

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary 

AMWG/TWG Travel Continue to provide funding to 

attend AMWG & TWG meetings 

Continue to provide funding to 

attend AMWG & TWG meetings 

Independent Reviews Peer review all publications; 

Integrated Water Quality and Food 

Base PEP 

Peer review all publications; 

Campsite & Sediment PEPs 

Science Advisors Reduce SA support by 25% Continue SA support at reduce level 

Computer Systems Support Maintain IT support for GCMRC Maintain IT support for GCMRC 

Synthesis of High Flow 

Experiment 

Complete HFE synthesis by 

01/01/11 

 

 
9

GCMRC FY11 and FY12 Major Deferred or Scaled Back Projects. 

Projects that were cut to address AMWG/DOI recommendations are 

highlighted in grey. 

Project Number /Title FY11 FY12 Comments 

GOAL 1—Aquatic Food Base

 BIO 1.M1 Aquatic Food Base Monitoring 

84,200 

 

84,200 

Deferred field sampling 

except at Diamond Creek 

and Lees Ferry in FY11-12 

GOAL 2—Native Fishes

 BIO 2.M4 Monitoring of Mainstem Fishes 

518,427 

 

239,300 

Deferred increased 

mainstem monitoring FY11-

12 subject to change based 

on fish data analyses 

BIO 2.R7 Stock Assessment of Grand Canyon 

Native Fish 48,700 49,000 Decreased analysis of fish data 

BIO 2.R13 Remote PIT Tag Reading 84,500 84,500 Defer expansion of PIT tag 

system 

BIO 2.R17 Nonnative Control Plan Science 

Support 76,900 76,900 Decrease staff support 

 BIO 2.tbd Fall Steady Flows Thermal Imaging 

86,200 

 

86,200 

Deferred 

GOAL 6—Riparian and Springs

 BIO 6.M2 Bird Monitoring / Alternating Years 

with Vegetation Transect Monitoring - 53,000 Defer bird monitoring FY12

 BIO 6.R4 Arthropod Monitoring Research & 

Development 0 95,400

Proposed by PEP to be 

implemented in alternating 

years FY10, FY12 

GOAL 7—Quality of Water

 PHY 7.R2 Integrated Flow, Temperature, and 

Sediment Modeling of the CRE 145,200 145,200 Defer further model R&D

GOAL 9—Recreation

 REC 9.R5 Evaluate Relation between Flows and 

Recreation Experience 225,000 225,000 Deferred in FY09-12 

 REC 9.R6 1973 Weeden Campsite Survey 

Revisited 75,000 75,000 Deferred in FY09-12 

 REC 9.R7 Update Regional Recreation Economic 

Study 250,000 250,000

 Deferred in FY09-12 

GOAL 10--Power and Economics
10

Project Number /Title FY11 FY12 Comments 

 HYD 10. 

tbd 

Phase I - Results of Economic Value 

Workshop 117,300 117,300

Deferred FY11-12 

GOAL 11—Cultural Resources

 CUL 

11.R1 

Cultural Research & Development 

towards Core Monitoring, Phase II 45,000 45,000 Reduced scope of work in FY11-12 

 CUL 

11.R3 

Geomorphic Model of Archaeological 

Site Vulnerability 266,100 266,100 Deferred in FY09-12 

GOAL 12— Administrative / Management

 DASA 

12.D1 

 Quadrennial Remote Sensing 

Overflight 83,500 116,500 Decreased savings for overflight FY11-12 

 DASA 

12.D1 

 Hyperspectral Overflight for 

Vegetation Mapping 95,200 95,200 Deferred FY10-12 

 DASA 

12.D3 

Library Operations / Scanning Support 

66,200 66,700 

Decreased to 1/2 time 

position, 

 DASA 

12.D9 

Integrated Image Analysis and Change 

Detection 89,600 89,600 Deferred 1984 Sandbar Image Analysis FY10-12 

 PLAN 

12.P1 

Support and Enhancement of 

Ecosystem Modeling Efforts 143,000 143,000 

Defer model expansion, 

publication of results & 

MATA workshop FY11-12

 PLAN 

12.P5 

NEW Desired Future Conditions 

Facilitation & Decision Support 60,500 60,500 Deferred FY11-12

ADM 12.A4 

(B) 

Science Advisors Support 50,000 50,000 Reduced services FY11-

12 

 ADM 

12.A5 

GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys 

Admin Support 72,900 72,900 Defer expanded GCMRC Website development, 

TOTAL GCMRC Major Deferred or Scaled Back 

Projects 2,683,427 2,586,500 
11

 Experimental Fund Expenditures and Projected Balance -- FY10 

through FY12 

 Project Number/Title 

 FY10 Gross 

Actual Funding 

from BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

 Gross FY11 

Proposed Funding 

from BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

 Gross FY12 

Proposed 

Funding from 

BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

 Beginning 

Balance at Start of 

Fiscal Year 

 - 427,174 286,672 

 Contributions to 

Experimental 

Fund from 

Reclamation 

 493,500 505,838 521,013 

 BIO 2.E18.11 

NEW Evaluation of Trout Movement, 

Natal Origins and Alternatives for 

Controlling Rainbow Trout 

Populations Near the LCR (PBR) 

 - 198,631 

311,610 

 BIO 1.M1.11 HFE Science Plan Implementation 

Aquatic Food Base - 100,000 100,000 

 BIO 4.M2.11 HFE Science Plan Implementation 

Monitoring Lees Ferry Fish - 22,709 

22,709 

 PHY 8.M2.11 HFE Science Plan Implementation 

Sediment - 300,000 300,000 

 REC 9.R4.11 

Evaluate Recreation Values and 

Visitor Experience Quality in the 

Glen Canyon Reach 

 25,000 

25,000 

 EXP 7 HFE Synthesis of Knowledge (Study 

7) 66,326 - - 

 Total Expenditures (66,326) (646,340) 

(759,319) 

 Balance at End of Fiscal Years $ 427,174 $ 286,672 $ 48,366 
12

Conclusions 

Priority AMWG/DOI needs addressed but at the expense of AMP 

resource monitoring projects that address high priority information 

needs. 

• will significantly impact projects that are aimed at assessing the 

status of key resources and evaluating the effectiveness of 

management or experimental actions. 

• implications for the ability of the AMP to assess surprising 

resource responses and assess progress towards achieving 

desired future conditions. 

Strategy is needed to seek additional revenues to meet the growing 

demands for science and management in the AMP. 

• DOI and the AMWG need to work together to address this 

issue. 
13

GCMRC Response to TWG FY 2011-12 Preliminary Budget 

Recommendations to the Adaptive Management Work Group 

Issues of Concern: 

1. Implement a new start in the work plan for power economics which will be carried 

out by WAPA in FY 2011 and 2012, as described in the proposal provided by WAPA 

dated 3/15/10. WAPA will perform these tasks with no cost to the GCDAMP, and will 

provide the actual cost as a cooperator in the budget spreadsheet. The work will be part of 

the work plan and coordinated and reviewed by GCMRC. The work plan would be 

developed by GCRMC and WAPA in coordination with the TWG. This will result in 

costs to GCMRC that will need to be provided to oversee and provide peer review of this 

project. (10/3/3) 

GCMRC Response: This project is included in GCMRC’s BWP. Funding is included GCMRC 

to coordinate the work plan and provide peer review for this new initiative, and coordinate 

timely publication of findings pursuant to USGS publication standards. 

2. (Line 175) Humpback chub translocations above Chute Falls have been deferred by 

GCMRC. TWG believes this is an important compliance requirement, and a project that 

has shown great potential for positive effects on the LCR population and should be 

funded in FY 2011 and 2012. (No objection) 

GCMRC Response: Funding to implement humpback chub monitoring and translocation above 

Chute fall is included in the BWP GCMRC staff time is included to help develop a long term 

study plan for the project in coordination with FWS. Continued funding of this activity by the 

AMP will impact other elements of the AMP science program. 

3. TWG is concerned about the continued use of the experimental fund for other 

purposes within the budget. Without setting aside the experimental fund, it may be 

difficult to carry out flow experiments in the future. Should there be an HFE in FY 11 or 

12, having this small amount of money available for data gathering and analysis would 

mean no meaningful study. The default would be determining the effect of an HFE 

through the monitoring program alone. An HFE should only be conducted to answer 

direct science questions. Therefore, a science plan should be developed and funding 

should be identified for this purpose. (10/3/3) 

GCMRC Response: GCMRC does not believe that the use of the experimental fund was or 

should be limited only to high flow experiments. We believe that the primary means of evaluating 

the HFE protocol will be though existing monitoring programs. GCMRC proposed using 

Experimental funds to be enhance the monitoring efforts to support the evaluation of the HFE. 

A summary table showing the experimental fund expenditure and balances for FY 2010, 2011 

and 2012 is attached (Attachment 3). 
14

4. (Line 24) TWG is concerned about the continued use of the warm water nonnative fish 

contingency fund for other purposes within the budget. (no objection) 

GCMRC Response: The BWP proposes depositing $900K into the nonnative fish contingency 

fund in FY 11 and 1 ($600K in FY 11 and $300K in FY 12). These funds would be allocated by 

Reclamation subject to nonnative fish control projects defined through the Nonnative fish EA 

and tribal consultation. 

5. (Line 166) GCMRC has moved numerous projects out of the budget to an unfunded 

projects list. Many of these issues represent compliance requirements or other important 

projects that should be carried out to further the goals of the GCDAMP. The AMWG 

should consider other mechanisms for acquiring funding for these projects, such as 

identified in the biennial budget process paper. (13/2/2) 

GCMRC Response: GCMRC agrees with the TWG that this is a significant issue that needs to 

be addressed by the AMWG and DOI. 

6. Although GCMRC has designated projects in the spreadsheet as core monitoring 

(COR), TWG has only provisionally approved the sediment-related programs at this time 

and will be considering the other programs over the next few years. (no objection) 

GCMRC Response: All such Core Monitoring designations are made with the understanding 

that they are subject to TWG and AMWG review in accordance with the Step 4 approval process 

in the general core monitoring plan. 

7. (Line 115) Add funding in FY 2011 for DFC support (60k), including facilitation and 

decision support. (No objection) 

GCMRC Response: No funding was specifically included in GCMRC’s portion of the BWP for 

this activity. We believe the Knowledge Assessment and ecosystem modeling project can help 

address this need. 

8. (Line 71) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should include $25,000 to fund an Extirpated 

Species Workshop to achieve the following: 

a. Finalize and prioritize species list 

b. Assess current compliance environment for various implementation strategies 

c. Develop a strategic framework for implement extirpated species goal within AMP 

This work could be funded by reducing the DASA 12.D5.10 cooperative agreement by $25,000. 

(12/3/1) 

GCMRC Response: The AMWG or DOI needs to determine whether funding for extirpated 

species work (Goal 3) is an AMP priority. It is currently not reflected in the AMWG priority 

questions or called for in the Monitoring and Research Plan. Funding this out of DASA 

12.D5.10 will impact a variety projects which need GIS support. 
15

GCMRC is willing to assist with planning and organizing this workshop if the AMP decides to 

sponsor this activity. However, given the funding shortfall, the direct costs for the workshop (i.e. 

conference room rental, travel reimbursements, speakers’ fees, facilitators’ fees, etc.) will not be 

covered by GCMRC with AMP funds. 

9. (Line 188) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should include $89,568 to fund deferred 

project DASA 12.D9.10-11. This one-time study is needed to aid the AMP in 

quantifying a desired future condition for sediment resources. This work could be 

funded by reducing the DASA 12.D5.10 cooperative agreement by $89,568 for one year 

or $45,000 over two years. (11/3/2) 

GCMRC Response: Funding this work seems premature until the DFC process determines that 

this analysis is needed. Funding this out of DASA 12.D5.10 will impact GIS support to a variety 

of projects and delay project deliverables. GCMRC believes it may be able to dedicate some staff 

resources to this project in FY 11 within the existing budget subject to AMWG/DOI approval . 

however the full funding request could not be accommodated. 

10. (Line 160) Evaluation of rainbow and brown trout movement . . . this funding is 

inadequate for the purpose of studying and implementing possible alternatives to 

lethal fish removal. We suggest an increase to $200 to $300 k. Alternatively, we suggest 

a budget correction after tribal consultation and resulting actions identified. (No 

objection) 

GCMRC Response: The BWP include a detailed study plan for evaluating rainbow trout 

movement in the Paria to Badger Reach below Lee Ferry. We believe this study will help 

address questions related to the natal origins of rainbow trout and the feasibility of and strategy 

for removing fish in the Paria to Badger reach. 

11. (Line 168) Increased mainstem monitoring should be funded in FY 11 and 12. (no 

objection) 

GCMRC Response: Mainstem fish monitoring was reduced in FY 11 to make funds available to 

address AMWG priorities provide funds for nonnative fish control. In FY 12 the mainstem 

monitoring will be restored to the FY 10 level of effort. Intensive sampling of the mainstem will 

occur in conjunction with any mechanical removal project that is implemented in FY 11 and 12. 

If nonnative fish control does not occur in FY 11, GGCMRC recommends that $240K be restored 

the mainstem removal project. 

12. (Line 186) Since this geomorphological modeling project assists in the identification of 

the impacts of dam operations vs. the impacts of natural effects, this project should be 

funded. (no objection) 

GCMRC Response: We believe a geomorphic model may potentially assist in the identification 

of the impacts of dam operations on cultural sites and be useful to frame the future monitoring 

program. The geomorphic workshop planned for later this year will better define the scope and 
16

benefits of a model. Due to the relatively high expected cost (~$250K) and program funding 

constraints, GCMRC does not support model development in FY 11 or 12. 

13. (Lines 38-42) Recommend that DOI and DOE meet with the tribes to discuss including a 

CPI increase for tribal participation to those tribes that utilize their allocation, 

consultation and tribal monitoring programs. Another tribal entity may participate in FY 

11 and additional funding may be necessary. (No objection) 

GCMRC Response: Funding for tribal participation is not within the purview of GCMRC. This 

is provided with DOI appropriated funds outside the scope of the AMP science budget 

14. (Line 29) Develop methodologies to integrate tribal perspectives into the treatment 

plan. (no objection) 

GCMRC Response: N/A. This project is managed by BOR. 

15. The budget spreadsheet and work plan should include other projects being 

undertaken by cooperators using funds outside of the GCDAMP funding. (7/6/3) 

GCMRC Response: We recommend that ancillary project descriptions, deliverables and 

associated cost should be indentified in an appendix to the BWP. We agree with Robert King’s 

comment at the last TWG meeting that the AMP budget/spreadsheet should not include funding 

being provided by other cooperators for GCDAMP ancillary projects 

16. TWG advises the AMWG that if a long term experimental management plan EIS is 

undertaken in FY11 or 12 the amount of power revenues requested in the budget will 

increase. (No objection) 

GCMRC Response: GCMRC BWP provides for $250K of AMP funds to support a LTEMP EIS 

in FY 11 and FY 12. We understand that BOR will match this contribution with appropriated 

funds 

17. TWG recognizes that it does not have a formal process for evaluating and identifying 

a proposed hydrograph to the AMWG, and intends to undertake that development in 

this budget cycle. (8/7/1) 

GCMRC Response: GCMRC modeling support for the hydrograph development “process” 

should be factored into this discussion. 
17

Failed TWG “issues of concern” 

1. (Line 184) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should include $117,273 to fund deferred 

project HYD 10.tbd, “Phase I – Results of Economic Value Workshop”. (6/7/3) 

GCMRC Response: The AMWG or DOI needs to determine whether additional economic 

analysis capacity is an AMP priority. It has been clearly identified as a priority by the Science 

Advisors and by previous NAS/NRC reviews of the program. However, it is currently not 

reflected in the AMWG priority questions or called for in the Monitoring and Research Plan. If 

this work is a priority it’s not apparent where the funding will come from.

2. (Line 66) The FY11-12 budget/work plan should initiate the development of a nonnative fish control implementation plan that will include elements that will be scoped 

at the March 31st 2010 NNF workshop, but include the following elements: 

o Define Cooperating Groups and Roles 

 Agencies and tribes involved 

 Roles of agencies and tribes in plan development 

 Roles of agencies and tribes in plan implementation 

 Role of conservation measures 

o Define geographic and programmatic scope of plan 

o Outline possible control alternatives for inclusion in plan 

o Compliance and consultation and science needs 

o Completion schedule and deadlines 

o Funding needs for implementation 

o Draft outline of chapters of plan 

GCMRC Response: GCMRC supports this initiative and believes that if the plan is developed 

collaboratively and with AMP support, it will facilitate implementation of nonnative fish 

management actions. Except for GCMRC science support to develop the plan, funding for 

developing this management plan should not be taken from the AMP science budget. Also the 

development of this plan should be coordinated with ongoing tribal consultation and the NEPA 

activities related to nonnative fish management. GCMRC would like some direction from 

AMWG/TWG/DOI as to whether we should actively provide science support for development of 

this plan. 

3. (Line 143 & 161): SCORE report – FY 11 & 12 are “tight” budget years. We suggest 

deferring this project. (3/13/0) 

GCMRC Response: GCMRC supports the development of a SCORE report and Knowledge 

Assessment in FY 11 and 12. We believe they are needed inform the LTEMP EIS and GCMRC 

and AMP strategic planning.