Difference between revisions of "FY12-14 GCMRC Biannual Budget and Workplan"

Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Year 2013-14

The process used to arrive at the FY2013-14 budget and work plan was adopted by the AMWG in 2004 and revised in 2010 and 2011 to a 2-year fixed budget. In summary, the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) of the Technical Work Group (TWG), with input from the Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG), worked with the BRUC and the GCMRC to develop a proposal for the TWG. The TWG then reviews the proposed budget and work plan and develops a recommendation to the AMWG (this document).

The FY2013-14 budget and work plan was also prepared in consideration of the projected hydrograph for Lake Powell release for water year (WY) 2013, which is based on forecasted inflows to Lake Powell and GCD releases determined by the 1996 Record of Decision on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, the 2007 Record of Decision on interim guidelines for coordinated operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and the 2008 FONSI on the EA of experimental releases for the period 2008–12, and with the consideration of the approved FY2012 approved by the Secretary of the Interior on December 7, 2011. It also observes commitments made in the 2007 and 2011 biological opinions. The projected hydrograph is based on best estimates available from Reclamation’s 24-month study released in May 2010; however, the forecast is subject to change as further data becomes available.

This document consists of two chapters: Chapter 1, the BRUC budget and work plan, and Chapter 2, the GCMRC budget and work plan. The FY13/14 BWP is organized differently from the BWPs of past years. The FY13/14 BWP includes fewer projects, and each project is organized around larger monitoring and research themes. For example, there were 12 projects concerning fish and other aquatic resources in the FY11/12 BWP, and there are 5 projects in the FY13/14 BWP. The monitoring and research themes identified in the FY13/14 BWP are those common to (1) the 5 priority questions and the 12 program goals developed by the AMWG in 2004, (2) the monitoring and research plan prepared by GCMRC, approved by AMWG in August 2007 and amended and approved in April 2009 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a), (3) the strategic science plan prepared by GCMRC in March 2007 and amended in April 2009 (U. S. Geological Survey, 2007b), (4) the draft Core Monitoring Plan (U. S. Geological Survey, 2011), (5) the General Science Plan appended to the Environmental Assessment for the Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, appendix B), (6) the Research and Monitoring Plan for the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, appendix B), and (7) the 2011 report of the Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group of the AMWG.

Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2013-14

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is a program and a process wherein protection and management of Colorado River resources downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are part of decision process concerning dam operations. The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement longterm monitoring programs to ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated “… in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use.” The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) recommended creation of a federal advisory committee to advise the Secretary on implementation of an adaptive management program for operations of the dam. The Record of Decision for the EIS that was signed in October 1996 created this federal advisory committee, and the charter of the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) that implements the GCDAMP was signed in January 1997.

The GCDAMP budget is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR). Part of the GCDAMP budget supports BoR’s project administration and staff travel, provides reimbursements to AMWG members and members of other GCDAMP committees and subcommittees, provides meeting facilitation and public outreach, and supports compliance activities. BoR funding, with supplemental support from 4 other agencies of the Department of the Interior, also supports Native American tribal participation in many aspects of the program. A large proportion of the GCDAMP annual budget supports the monitoring and research work of the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). The GCMRC is the primary science provider for the GCDAMP, and undertakes monitoring activities about the status and trends of natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir. The GCMRC also undertakes research activities to resolve critical uncertainties about how dam operations affect downstream river resources.

Project A. Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales

The work described here is an ongoing project and includes a set of integrated studies conducted at several different spatial and temporal scales. Collectively, these studies are designed to track the results of individual High-Flow Experiments (HFEs) and to monitor the cumulative effect of these HFEs and intervening operations. Additionally, the goal of this work is to advance understanding of sediment transport and eddy sandbar dynamics to improve capacity for predicting the effects of future dam operations.

One of the central challenges in the management of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam is the need to balance objectives related to sediment conservation with other management objectives, and to do so in the context of a limited supply of fine sediment. Evaluation of whether management goals are being met currently and prediction of the likelihood of meeting goals in the future requires a combination of monitoring activities and research efforts.

The key uncertainty about management of sandbars downstream from Glen Canyon Dam articulated in the recently completed Environmental Assessment for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, is the question, "Can sandbar building during HFEs exceed sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, such that sandbar size can be increased and maintained over several years?" This question can be answered through continued monitoring of sand deposits over a multi-year timeframe of repeated controlled flood experiments.

Monitoring conducted in this project will include daily and annual observations of longterm sandbar monitoring sites by remote camera and conventional topographic survey, respectively. These observations add to the existing long-term dataset and will be available following each HFE as an initial assessment of resource condition that could be used to adjust the HFE implementation strategy, if necessary. Because these monitoring sites represent only a small proportion of the total number of sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons, this project also includes the analysis of system-wide airborne remote-sensing data to monitor a much larger set of sandbars every four years to assess sandbar size and abundance.

The continued success of HFEs to rebuild sandbars depends on maintaining an adequate supply of sand in and near the Colorado River. If there is a decline in sand storage, the likelihood that HFEs alone can maintain sandbars is decreased. While the sandbar monitoring studies provide needed information on resource condition, they do not provide any measure of the total amount of sand in storage in and near the Colorado River, because a very small fraction of the sand in storage is in the monitoring sites. To provide this critical information about sand storage and to evaluate whether dam operations, including HFEs, are likely to result in sandbar maintenance or eventual decline, sediment storage will be monitored by repeat channel-wide surveys of river segments on a rotating basis of approximately every 3 to 10 years. Other components of this project are designed to integrate findings across longer spatial and temporal scales, investigate how specific changes in sandbar morphology affect campsite quality, link sandbar deposition dynamics with the distribution of riparian vegetation along shorelines, provide habitat and riverbed substrate information to biological studies, and improve understanding of the variability of sandbar response to dam operations. Collectively, these studies will contribute to improved capacity to predict the effects of future controlled floods.

Project B. Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem

This proposal is to fund the ongoing measurement of stage, discharge, water quality (water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen), suspended sediment, and bed sediment at gaging stations in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) downstream from Glen Canyon Dam in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park. The data collected by this project provide the fundamental stream flow, sediment transport, temperature, and water quality data that are used by other physical, ecological, and socio-cultural resource studies. Thus, this project directly links dam operations to the physical, biological, and sociocultural resources of the CRe. This project also funds interpretation of these data, specifically examining how stream flow and its related attributes affect resources of the CRe.

Project C. Water-Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Releases

The data collected by this project describe the current quality of Glen Canyon Dam releases to the downstream ecosystem, as well as describe the current water-quality conditions and hydrologic processes in Lake Powell, which can be used to predict the quality of future releases from the dam. The current long-term monitoring program will continue at the current level, with possible minor revisions to the number of sites monitored or parameters collected. In an effort to improve the predictive capabilities of the CE-QUAL-W2 simulation model, it is proposed that one or more inflow monitoring stations be reestablished to provide input data on inflow temperature and salinity. It is also proposed to establish one or more weather stations at remote pumpout stations in the upper part of the reservoir to improve inputs to the model. In addition to the ongoing monitoring program, efforts are currently being made to analyze sonar chart paper data to develop longitudinal profiles of the sediment deltas of the three major tributaries to evaluate rates and patterns of deposition under varying hydrologic regimes and reservoir levels. These profiles have been collected in conjunction with most quarterly reservoir surveys since 2001. This project conducts water-quality monitoring on Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam tailwaters. The water-quality monitoring program consists of monthly surveys of the reservoir forebay and tailwater, as well as quarterly surveys of the entire reservoir, including the Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante arms. It also includes continuous monitoring of dam releases. The entire funding for this project is provided directly by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). No Adaptive Management Program funds are used for this project.

Project D. Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and Metapopulation Dynamics

Sampling mainstem humpback chub (Gila cypha) aggregations has been conducted periodically over the last decade including in 2002 through 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2011.Fish were sampled by hoop and trammel nets at aggregations first described by Valdez and Ryel (1995). These monitoring efforts provide catch per unit effort indices, but abundance estimates were infrequently made. This project proposes to increase sampling during FY13-14, following on the results of a pilot study in FY12. The purpose of this work is to improve monitoring techniques and provide estimates of humpback chub abundance in several mainstem aggregations. Continued monitoring of aggregations is required as part of the Non-Native Fish Control Environmental Assessment and associated Biological Opinion. Additionally, this project will improve our understanding of the impact of translocation efforts in humpback chub metapopulation dynamics. Basic information on status and trends of humpback chub outside of the LCR aggregation is also desired by managers to assess impacts of operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions on mainstem Colorado River humpback chub aggregations.

Although recent catch rate information indicates aggregations might be growing, absolute numbers of humpback chub at aggregations remain low relative to the aggregation that occurs at the confluence with the Little Colorado River (hereafter referred to as the LCR aggregation). We will also evaluate the growth potential of humpback chub at aggregations by quantifying the availability of food resources and measuring feeding habits. These data will be compared with similar data collected near the LCR (Project E: Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Early Life History in and around the Little Colorado River). Reproductive potential of humpback chub will be determined using condition indices and experiments. Collectively, the proposed research will yield a more rigorous aggregation monitoring program and will increase our understanding of the ecology of aggregations, including whether downstream reaches in Grand Canyon are capable of supporting self-sustaining populations of humpback chub. We also propose research on otolith microchemistry of juvenile humpback chub captured at aggregations or of areas such as during backwater seining to assess whether these aggregations are supported by emigration of juvenile fish from the LCR or local spawning and recruitment.

Project E. Humpback Chub Early Life History in and Around the Little Colorado River

In FY13-14, we will: (a) estimate growth, survival, and movement of juvenile humpback chub in the Little Colorado River (LCR) by marking young-of-year humpback chub (Gila cypha) each year in the LCR in July, (b) describe food web structure and assess the potential for food limitation within the LCR, and (c) conduct data analysis and modeling that will integrate findings from the above efforts and ongoing standardized monitoring to determine the relative roles of LCR hydrology, intraspecific and interspecific interactions, and mainstem conditions in humpback chub juvenile life history and adult recruitment. These new research efforts will address a suite of questions that have arisen based on insights gained from standardized monitoring conducted since 2000 and new findings from the mainstem monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence-Juvenile Chub Monitoring (Project F: Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem Colorado River and Lower 13.6 km of the Little Colorado, Element F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence-Juvenile Chub Monitoring):

1. To what extent do survival and growth in the LCR aggregation vary annually and spatially (i.e., mainstem vs. LCR downstream of Chute Falls vs. LCR upstream of Chute Falls)?
2. What are the drivers of observed variation in survival and growth? Specifically, to what extent are endogenous (e.g., intraspecific predation and competition for food) versus exogenous factors (e.g., interspecific competition and predation, mainstem conditions— including dam operations—and variation in LCR hydrology, etc.) responsible for temporal and spatial variation in survival and growth?
3. To what extent does outmigration of humpback chub from the LCR vary over time?

Prior to the Near Shore Ecology (NSE) project (2009-2011), our understanding of variation in humpback chub early life history was limited to back-calculations of cohort strength (# of fish surviving to adulthood from a given birth year) derived from abundance estimates of four yearold fish (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009). The life history parameters (i.e., direct estimates of survival and growth for juvenile humpback chub rearing in specific locations) provided by NSE-style sampling are more germane to evaluating ongoing adaptive management experimentation because population dynamics of many fish species are driven by changes in growth or survival at early life stages (Walters and Martell, 2004). Furthermore, direct estimates of survival and growth for juvenile humpback chub are more sensitive to yearly changes in, for example, dam operations or LCR hydrology, than the indirect estimates of survival and growth derived from back-calculations in the Age-Structured Mark Recapture (ASMR) model (Coggins and Walters, 2009).

The survival rate estimates for juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem measured by the NSE project were higher than most scientists anticipated (Knowledge Assessment, 2011; 2012). However, the NSE project occurred during a period when water temperatures, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) abundances, and LCR conditions were all favorable to native fish and fairly consistent among years. Continuation of NSE sampling in FY12 and beyond will allow scientists to determine the impacts of increasing rainbow trout abundances and decreasing water temperature, which are anticipated in FY12, on juvenile humpback chub survival and growth in the mainstem. However, even these estimates of juvenile humpback chub survival and growth in the mainstem under a new set of conditions will be partially confounded by un-described variation in LCR conditions unless additional primary research studies in the LCR are initiated. The NSE project also found that growth rates for juvenile humpback chub were higher in the LCR relative to the mainstem during summer months. However, the opposite was true in the fall—growth rates were higher in the mainstem than in the LCR. This finding—that growth rates in the mainstem were at times higher than in the LCR—also came as a surprise to many scientists. Yet, interpretation of these differences in growth rates is not straightforward, because densities in one habitat—the LCR—may be dependent on conditions there (e.g., density of adult humpback chub and other native species, food availability, etc.), but juvenile abundance in the LCR might also be a function of conditions in the mainstem (i.e., warm water, low non-native abundances, etc.).

Humpback chub translocations upstream of Chute Falls have also yielded insights about early life history parameters. Growth rates for juvenile humpback chub rearing upstream of Chute Falls are two times higher than growth rates of juvenile humpback chub rearing in the LCR downstream of Chute Falls. It is worth noting that these differences in juvenile humpback chub growth within the LCR (upstream vs. downstream of Chute Falls) are actually larger than the differences in juvenile humpback chub growth between the downstream part of the LCR and the mainstem (Knowledge Assessment, 2011; 2012).

Standardized monitoring indicates that fall juvenile abundances in the LCR vary strongly among years (VanHaverbeke and others, 2012; Knowledge Assessment presentations, 2011; 2012). During the NSE project, fall LCR juvenile abundances were consistently high, but there have been years in the recent past (i.e., 2002 and 2006) when LCR juvenile abundances in the fall were very low. These years—2002 and 2006—may correspond to either higher or lower juvenile abundances in the mainstem, depending on whether variation in juvenile survival in the LCR or outmigration from the LCR is the primary lever affecting fall LCR juvenile abundances. Put another way, low fall abundances in the LCR might be a leading indicator of a failed birth year because of poor juvenile survival in the LCR, or low fall abundances may simply reflect decreased use of the LCR by juveniles because of forced (LCR flooding) or purposeful migration into the mainstem Colorado River. Additional primary research studies in the LCR are needed to resolve these new questions and associated uncertainties.

Project F. Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem Colorado River and the lower Little Colorado River

Native fish populations in Grand Canyon are key resources of concern influencing decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions. To inform these decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of fish populations, particularly the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), be available to managers. A suite of adaptive experimental management actions are being contemplated to better understand the mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of native fish and to identify policies that are consistent with the attainment of management goals. The assessments generated from this project provide a baseline from which to assess the effects of implemented experimental actions. This information is therefore crucial to (1) inform the program as to attainment of identified goals, (2) provide baseline status and trend information to be used as a backdrop to further understand mechanisms controlling native and nonnative fish population dynamics, and (3) evaluate the efficacy of particular management policies in attaining program goals. The results of this project are potentially useful in assessing changes to the Federal Endangered Species Act listing status of humpback chub in Grand Canyon.

Project G.Interactions between Native Fish and Nonnative Trout

This project will evaluate impacts of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) on humpback chub (Gila cypha) in both laboratory and field settings. Laboratory studies will be used to isolate confounding variables and quantify relative competition and predation impacts of rainbow and brown trout on humpback chub under varying environmental conditions. Results of laboratory tests will then be used in conjunction with data from long-term monitoring to model population level impacts of trout on humpback chub. The field study will remove brown trout by electrofishing in and around Bright Angel Creek and subsequently evaluate impacts of brown trout removal on native fish populations. Combining laboratory studies, field studies, monitoring efforts, and modeling will allow researchers to understand how predation and competition by rainbow and brown trout impact humpback chub at various life stages and at population level. This will allow managers to improve management actions designed to conserve Colorado River native fishes.

Project H. Understanding the Factors Limiting the Growth of Large Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons

This project will involve: (a) a simple laboratory experiment to determine if the strain of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Lees Ferry is capable of growing to large size; (b) data collection and model development to better understand factors controlling primary production and invertebrate drift; (c) collecting hydrodynamic and fish diet data, which will be used to develop a bioenergetics model of trout foraging; and (d) undertaking a synthesis of other tailwaters to better understand how dam operations affect the size distribution of salmonids in other settings. In addition, we present a contingency plan of work activities in case a fall highflow experiment (HFE) occurs in Fiscal Year 2013 or 2014. Although we have a good understanding of food web response to the spring high-flow experiments conducted in 1996 and 2008, our understanding of food web response to the fall high-flow experiment in 2004 is more limited. Thus, we are poised to take advantage of learning opportunities presented by any highflow experiments that occur during FY 2013 or 2014.

Over the last few decades, the rainbow trout fishery in Lees Ferry has been characterized by three undesirable properties: (1) population fluctuations characterized by decadal scale cycles in rainbow trout abundances (Makinster and others, 2011); (2) increasing potential for negative interactions between rainbow trout and native fishes caused by expansion of rainbow trout populations downstream (Yard and others, 2011); and (3) an absence of the large-sized rainbow trout that are highly valued by the angling community (Schmidt and others 1998). The causes of the long term population cycles are fairly well understood (Korman and others, in press; Cross and others, 2011), and the Natal Origins project (Project Element D.2.) was specifically designed to address uncertainties surrounding the downstream migration of rainbow trout. In this project we propose a suite of research activities designed to better understand the factors limiting the growth of large rainbow trout. These efforts will also provide information that can be used to better the understand factors of population fluctuations and the potential for negative interactions between rainbow trout and native species.

Project I. Riparian Vegetation Studies: Response Guilds as a Monitoring Approach, and Describing the Effects of Tamarisk Defoliation on the Riparian Community Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam

Riparian vegetation affects physical processes and biological interactions along the Colorado River’s corridor. The presence and expansion of riparian vegetation promotes bank stability and diminishes the magnitude of scour and fill during floods. Scour and fill is the process by which bare sandbars are maintained. Dam operations that include daily fluctuations provide sufficient water to dry marshs, vegetation, as well as woody riparian shrubs. Thus, expansion of these species has occurred during normal powerplant operations. Alternatively, occasional high flows and sustained periods of low flows promote the recruitment of tamarisk. Thus, each of these vegetation groups responds an aspect to the flow regime and forms a vegetation response guild. The presence and extent of particular response guilds creates a monitoring framework to evaluate riparian vegetation response to dam operations and the potential effect guilds of vegetation may have on the status of other resources, such as sandbar stability and campsite availability.

While dam operations affect riparian vegetation responses, the introduced tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda spp.) is another driver affecting riparian vegetation in Grand Canyon. Tamarisk is a keystone species in the postdam riparian community, because its presence affects so many biological and physical processes. Tamarisk’s presence affects native plant diversity, wildlife habitat and poses an increased wildfire risk where dense stands occur in some areas of the southwest. In spite of the negative properties attributed to tamarisk, the plant is a source of shade for recreational boaters and hikers in Grand Canyon and is nesting habitat for some neotropical bird species. The defoliation of tamarisk by the beetle will likely alter the composition of the riparian community and affect associated resources and some management goals.

The effect of riparian vegetation on associated resources and the uncertain direction of the riparian community’s composition in response to dam operations and the tamarisk beetle have garnered the attention of stakeholders within the Adaptive Management Program for Glen Canyon Dam (GCDAMP). The stakeholders of the GCDAMP requested that a greater effort be made to understand riparian vegetation response to dam operations and the effect of riparian vegetation on other resources. This project proposes vegetation response guild monitoring, and quantifying the effects of the tamarisk beetle on ground dwelling arthropods and pollinators. The response guild monitoring approach that is utilized here is being conducted across the Colorado River basin within the National Park system. Thus, the work described here is complimentary to work elsewhere and permits comparison of vegetation response across river segments subject to different flow regimes elsewhere in the watershed. The sampling described here occurs within a hydro-geomorphic framework and allows interpretation of vegetation response as related to dam operations and geomorphic setting. The type of response guilds found downstream from Glen Canyon Dam can identify contracting or expanding areas of riparian vegetation, simplification of the riparian community, and simplification or narrowing of the river channel. Describing the effects of tamarisk defoliation on the postdam riparian community is the first requirement to understanding the implications of the tamarisk beetle on the riparian community in Grand Canyon. Ground dwelling arthropods and pollinators are good earlier indicators of environmental change and are links to the terrestrial food web.

Project J. Monitoring of Cultural Resources at a Small Scale and Defining the Large-Scale Geomorphic Context of those Processes

In FY13/14, GCMRC will continue its monitoring work in Glen Canyon; begin a pilot monitoring program at a few select sites in Marble and Grand Canyons; and, begin a comprehensive Colorado River valley geomorphology research program. The objective of the first two elements of this research and monitoring project are to further refine the appropriate level of precision, accuracy, and spatial scope required to monitor the condition of archaeological resources in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in ways that are responsive to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). The third element of this project initiates a large-scale evaluation of the geomorphic processes that have created and maintain the Holocene deposits in and on which archaeological sites occur. This element seeks to determine the long-term stability and erosional vulnerability of those deposits and relies on a combination of field measurements, remote sensing, and geomorphic modeling. The integration of small (Project Elements J.1. and J.2.) and large (Project Element J.3.) scale approaches will provide the large-scale geomorphic context to the detailed scale monitoring that occurs at specific archaeological sites.

Project K. GCMRC Economist and Support

The economist position within GCMRC is expected to be filled during FY 12. Funding in FY 13/14 will support the anticipated salary of this individual and associated travel and training. The work activities of this individual will be developed based on consultation with the AMWG, TWG, GCDAMP ad hoc committees, and guidance from agencies.

Project L. Independent Reviews and Science Advisers

Independent reviews are an essential part of the GCDAMP. There are two items in the independent review part of the GCDAMP budget. One part concerns independent reviews commissioned by GCMRC. The primary activity is the convening of Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEP) to review the state-of-the-science in critical areas of science and management and to consider development of formal protocols for monitoring different aspects of the CRe. In FY 13/14, there are no new PEPs scheduled, and the work involved in these reviews is expected to decrease. Thus, the proposed budget for this activity from $36,000 in FY 12 to $24,000 in FY 13.

Careful consideration was given to providing appropriate support for the work of the Science Advisors. The work of the Science Advisors is coordinated by L. D. Garrett of M3 Research. Dr. Garrett was the first Chief of the GCMRC. Dr. Garrett provided a request to GCMRC describing proposed activities for FY13 in a memo dated May 3. After review of that request, the requested Science Advisor budget for report review and development was funded, the amount allocated to meeting attendance was significantly reduced, and LTEMP support was eliminated.

Project M. USGS Administration

The USGS Administration budget covers salaries for the communications coordinator, the librarian, and the budget analyst for GCMRC, in addition to monetary awards for all GCMRC personnel. The vehicle section covers GSA vehicle costs including monthly lease fee, mileage costs, and any costs for accidents and damage. DOI vehicles are also included in this section of the budget to pay for vehicle gas, maintenance, and replacements costs. Leadership personnel covers salary and some of the travel and training costs for the GCMRC Chief, Deputy Chief, and two program managers. AMWG/TWG travel covers the cost of GCMRC personnel to travel to the AMWG and TWG meetings. SBSC Information Technology (IT) overhead covers GCMRCs IT equipment costs.. Logistics base costs covers salaries and travel/training. These base costs also include a $35,000 contribution to the equipment and vehicles working capital fund.

Project N. Incremental Allocations in Support of Quadrennial Overflights

Overflights, during which digital aerial photographs and remotely-sensed data are acquired, occur every 4 years as part of the regular monitoring program of he GCDAMP. These data are used by most of the projects described in the BWP. The estimated average cost of each quadrennial overflight is approximately $565,000, and this amount is accrued during a 4-yr period. Thus, the amount listed in the FY 13 and FY 14 budgets represents the required amounts so that overflight data acquisition will occur in 2013 and 2017.

• Budget AdHoc Group Page
• Back to GCDAMP Planning

• GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan--Fiscal Years 2013-14
• GCMRC Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Project Report to the GCDAMP

2014

• Minutes from BAHG Webinar/CC held on June 12 and June 18
• Budget Ad Hoc Group Minutes from May 20, 2014 WebEx/CC
• Budget Ad Hoc Group Minutes from May 23, 2014, WebEx/CC and SBSC Facilities and Overhead
• FY 2014 Reprogramming Request Lees Ferry Minimum Flow Study by the International Federation of Fly Fishers dated December 11, 2013
• GCMRC Budget Update
• Science Questions and Information Needs Identified in the 2013-14 GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan Draft October 2013 (not reviewed by GCMRC)
• GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by the AMWG on 5/6/10
• USGS Facilities in Flagstaff
• Memo from Anne Castle Dated May 7, 2014, to Jack Schmidt (GCMRC) and Glen Knowles (USBR), Subject: GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan
• SBSC Facililties and Overhead PPT
• Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program FY2015-16 Budget and GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by AMWG on 5/6/10
• GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Paper dated May 6, 2010
• Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process – Amended on March 20, 2011, Table 1

2013

• GCDAMP Budget Process Paper Dated May 6, 2010; Attachment 3c: Budget Process Paper Amenda March 20, 2011 --> Table 1
• BWP Science Questions
• Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and Work Plan
• Budget Ad Hoc Group Update
• Draft FY13-14 Budget and Work Plan
• Budget AHG Meeting Notes from June 17, 2013, Conference Call
• Bureau of Reclamation
• GCDAMP 2013-14 Biennial Work Plan and Budget
• Overview of Reclamation FY 13-14 Budget
• FY13-14 Budget Specifics
• Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program FY2014 Budget and Work Plan
• GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2013-14
• GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by the AMWG on May 6, 2010
• Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process version March 20, 2011

2012

• AIF: Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget and Work Plan and Memo from Jack Schmidt and Glen Knowles Dated Aug. 24, 2012 to Anne Castle, Subject: Background Information Regarding Final Draft of the GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan for FY 2013-14
• GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2013-14 Planning Document
• Bureau of Reclamation Budget Overview
• GCMRC's Overview "The Big Question" PPT
• GCMRC's Response to Science Advisors' Review of the GCDAMP's Biennial Budget and Work Plan -- Fiscal Years 2013-14
• TWG Report Final FY2013-14 Budget and Work Plan PPT
• Draft FY2013-14 Biennial Budget and Work Plan
• DOI Response Memo Dated June 15, 2012, and BAHG Updates
• E-mail Dated June 15, 2012, from Shane Capron, Subj: FY2013-14 Final Budget Preparation Document
• Overview of Reclamation FY13-14 Budget
• Science Advisor Review of FY13-14 Budget
• Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Preparation Document
• Final Budget Results and Motions
• AIF: Proposed FY2013-14 Biennial Budget and Workplan
• Bureau of Reclamation FY2013-14 Proposed Budget and PPT
• USGS/GCMRC Proposed FY2013-14 Budget and PPT
• Memo from TWG Chair Dated April 19, 2012 and PPT
• Report on Tribal AMWG Representative Budget Discussion for Fiscal Year 2013-14
• Memo from Dr. Garrett to TWG Chair Dated April 11, 2012, Subject: Review Comments on GCMRC 2013-14 Draft Budget Proposal
• Meeting Notes from Budget Ad Hoc Group Call held on April 12, 2012
• USBR Proposed FY2013-14 Budget and PPT
• GCMRC Proposed FY2013-14 Budget and PPT
• CRAHG Issues with Proposed FY2013-14 Biennial Budget
• AIF: FY2013-14 Biennial Budget and Workplan and TWG Chair PPT
• Overview of FY13-14 Budget Considerations PPT
• GCMRC FY11 Budget Summary PPT
• Biennial Budget and Work Plan PPT
• Meeting Notes from Budget AHG Conf Call held Feb. 14, 2012
• GCMRC Budget Information (breakdown in work percentages) PPT
• GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by the AMWG on May 6, 2010
• Status Review