GCDAMP BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS 

Revised Draft for TWG Review 

March 2, 2010 

At its August 12-13, 2009 meeting, the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) instructed the 

Technical Work Group (TWG) to terminate its deliberations on comparisons between rolling and nonrolling two-year budget processes and to develop a two-year non-rolling budget beginning in Fiscal Years 

(FY) 2011-12. This document describes the proposed two-year non-rolling budget approach and some of 

the history that led up to its development. The primary goal is to reduce the effort currently expended on 

the budget process while maintaining a high-quality adaptive management program. 

MOTION: AMWG directs TWG to develop a two-year, FY11-12 two-year, non-rolling budget; 

and that a description of that process be provided by TWG to AMWG at its next meeting. 

Motion was passed by consensus 

1.0 Background 

The previous budget process (two-year rolling budget) was approved by AMWG in 2004 and helped to 

provide structure for the budget process. Within that structure, the primary element was a biennial budget, 

work plan, and hydrograph (BWPH). Each budget year, the GCDAMP would roll the old second year of 

the previous BWPH into the new first year, and add a new second year. It was envisioned that the rolling 

BWPH would be accompanied by a 3-year outlook that would allow development of appropriations 

requests on federal budget schedules if the need arose to supplement hydropower revenues for the 

GCDAMP. It would also include a 5-year strategic outlook to coincide with revisions of major strategic 

documents such as the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, the Strategic Science Plan, the Monitoring and Research 

Plan, and Core Monitoring Plan (unfinished). The Core Monitoring Plan also factored into the BWPH in 

that core monitoring projects, as they became defined and adopted, were to be added to the rolling BWPH 

as largely fixed budget items. 

The major components of the 2004 budget process were described as: 

 BWPH with rollover of year-two into year-one of the next BWPH, and would include (yet 

undeveloped) criteria for reopening the budget 

 Appropriations request for Federal agency budget or for Congressional write-in with a 3-year 

outlook 

 Strategic 5-year outlook to forecast major changes, determine need for contingencies, and 

develop draft out-year projects 

 Fiscal Reporting, mid-year and previous fiscal year 

 Project Progress Reports, mid-year and end end-of-year reports 

 Budget Spreadsheet and work plan 

 Formation of the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) 

Since the adoption of this process in 2004, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

(GDCAMP) implemented many aspects of the budget process (outlined above), especially those dealing 

with reporting, work plans, and budget spreadsheets. However, it was not until 2009 that the GCDAMP 

developed the first BWPH for FY 2010-11. During the development of the FY 2010-11 BWPH, some 

TWG members felt that the rolling budget process would not reduce effort spent on the budget and may 

have increased the amount of effort needed by the GCDAMP. Thus, an alternative to the rolling budget 

(i.e., non-rolling BWPH) was described in general terms to AMWG and adopted by the AMWG for the 

FY 2011-12 budget cycle (see AMWG motion above). 

Page 1 
2.0 Description of a Two-Year Non-rolling Budget Process 

The general approach is to use a budget development process similar to that taken by the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Figure 2). The goal is to reduce the effort expended on the 

budget process while improving the effectiveness of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC), TWG, and AMWG. Generally, the GCDAMP would develop a two-year budget the first year 

of the process. Then, in the second year the GCDAMP would revisit only year-two of the budget and 

make relatively minor corrections to allow for changes in projects or potential important new starts not 

envisioned during the development of the two-year budget. The potential benefit is that effort may be 

saved in year-two of the budget process allowing for time and effort to be used on other endeavors of 

interest to the GCDAMP. This goal can only be achieved if we are successful in limiting changes to the 

year-two BWPH. 

The major components of the two-year BWPH would include: 

 Two-year budget spreadsheets, work plans, and hydrographs, 

 Modifications of the year-two budget based on specific criteria, 

 Fiscal reporting, including expenditures for the previous fiscal year (mid-year and end end-ofyear reports), 

 Project progress reports, including an annual reporting meeting in January, and 

 Utilization of the BAHG to interface with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and GCMRC 

in developing a draft BWPH, and to help the TWG develop budget recommendations for AMWG 

consideration. 

Much of the rest of the process would be as described in 2004, such as reporting requirements, budget 

spreadsheets, work plans, and hydrographs would all be developed. TWG and GCMRC will hold an 

annual reporting workshop in January to review progress on the previous year’s work plan. 

3.0 Budget Process Components 

The following describes the specific elements of the budget process and responsibilities. 

3.1 Budget Principles 

The BWPH will: 

 Employ the adaptive environmental assessment and management approach to resources 

management that was developed by Holling (1978) and Walters (1986), and articulated in the 

Adaptive Management Program Strategic Plan (AMPSP) to include participation from the 

BAHG, TWG, and AMWG; 

 Be consistent with the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (SSP), Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP), and Core Monitoring Plan (when completed); 

 Use a collaborative science planning process as described in the SSP and MRP (Figure 1); and 

 Address GCDAMP priority questions, information needs, and the associated strategic science 

questions (SSQs) and using them to provide the primary basis for designing the science program; 

The BWPH process will be most successful if the AMPSP, SSP, MRP, and Core Monitoring Plan are 

current and up to date. It is important that science planning and management planning occur currently as 

portrayed in Figure 1. 

Page 2 
3.2 Priorities 

All parties in the GCDAMP recognize the fact that not all funds needed and requested will always be 

made available. Prioritization of work is essential to the budgeting process. This is especially true as we 

move toward a budget that will include core monitoring and management actions. The Strategic Plan, 

including the Goals and Management Objectives and Desired Future Conditions when available, and 

especially the Information Needs (in sequence order) should serve as the basis for determining budget 

priorities. We anticipate that AMWG will review and update these periodically (e.g., every 5 years) to 

ensure they reflect new information and program priorities. Currently many of the documents have not 

been reviewed or updated for nearly a decade. At its basic level the budget should put core monitoring 

and high priority information needs ahead of other activities. TWG will provide an initial general BWPH 

recommendation to AMWG at its spring meeting and AMWG will provide feedback to TWG on budget 

priorities and general direction which the BAHG, TWG, and GCMRC will use in their development of a 

final recommendation to AMWG. 

3.3 Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) 

TWG consideration of the budget and work plan has been facilitated by the BAHG, a small ad hoc group 

which has worked with Reclamation and GCMRC in past years. TWG will continue to utilize the BAHG 

to review the budget and work plan and to resolve difficult technical issues. The BAHG will work with 

Reclamation and GCMRC throughout the budget process and provide a liaison with TWG members. The 

BAHG will help Reclamation and GCMRC develop and bring to the TWG budgets that are prepared for 

full TWG discussion and recommendation to AMWG. Thus, technical issues and resolutions of major 

issues will be resolved to the extent possible before full TWG review. The TWG will give initial budget 

prioritization to the BAHG at its annual January reporting meeting. The BAHG will consider this input 

and the initial budget proposed by Reclamation and GCMRC and provide an initial budget 

recommendation to TWG at its late-winter meeting (e.g., March). The BAHG will then work with 

Reclamation and GCMRC through the spring and early summer to provide a final BWPH 

recommendation to the TWG at its summer meeting (e.g., June). In the second year of the BWPH this 

process will be truncated to consider only necessary changes to the budget for year-two (see section 3.8 

below). 

3.4 January Reporting Meeting 

TWG, in coordination with GCMRC and Reclamation, will hold a reporting meeting annually in January 

to review progress on funded monitoring and research projects for the previous year. GCMRC and 

Reclamation will provide an annual report for each funded activity in the work plan. TWG will use this 

time to review and evaluate the progress of projects and to give direction to the BAHG in the 

development of the initial budget. 

3.5 Mid-year and End of Year Fiscal Reporting Including Carry Over 

Reclamation and GCRMC will provide mid-year and end of fiscal year reporting of expenditures and 

carry over to TWG and AMWG. 

3.6 Budget Spreadsheet and Work Plan 

Reclamation and GCMRC will coordinate to provide a budget spreadsheet for the BAHG to review in 

January of each year based on either a new BWPH or modifications to the second year of the BWPH. The 

spreadsheet will include expected costs for each project based on the priority setting provided by AMWG 

and discussions with the BAHG. This spreadsheet will be used by TWG to provide initial budget 

Page 3 
recommendations to AMWG. Reclamation and GCMRC will coordinate to provide a budget spreadsheet, 

work plan, and hydrograph to the BAHG in the spring of the first year of the BWPH development. The 

BWPH will be used by TWG to provide final budget recommendations to AMWG. During the second 

year of the budget, a full work plan would not be developed, rather a memo from GCMRC and/or 

Reclamation, outlining changes to the work plan would be provided in addition to a modified budget 

spreadsheet. 

3.7 Hydrograph Development

The hydrograph of releases from Glen Canyon Dam emerges from a 24-month modeling study 

accomplished by Reclamation. Modeling outputs reflect anticipated inflows and reservoir storage to 

project annual and monthly dam releases. Daily fluctuations are predicated on agreements in the 1996 

Record of Decision and the 2008 FONSI on dam operations. The TWG will be provided with 

Reclamation’s 24-month findings, recognizing that these projections change with each month, to advise 

them of the most probable future release scenarios. TWG members will provide a recommendation for the 

hydrograph within the BWPH to AMWG at their draft and final BWPH meetings. There are advocates 

among TWG members that the ensuing AMWG BWPH recommendation should be factored into the 

Annual Operating Plan process. Department of the Interior officials are investigating whether this 

connection has been agreed to and will determine how the AMWG proceeds when that investigation is 

completed. 

3.8 Roles of GCDAMP Entities 

 TWG Chair: The chairman of the TWG will endeavor to provide appropriate time for full 

discussion of the budget on the TWG agenda, and encourage Reclamation and GCMRC to 

provide budget documents to the TWG sufficiently in advance of meetings to allow for full 

review prior to TWG meetings. 

 GCMRC: Develop budget spreadsheets and work plans in a timely manner that is responsive to 

Program Direction (SSP/MRP), and to TWG and AMWG requests and comments on draft 

documents. 

 Reclamation: Develop budget spreadsheets, work plans, and hydrographs for their portion of the 

budget that is responsive to TWG and AMWG requests and comments on draft documents. 

 AMWG: Review the initial budget at its spring meeting and provide input to Reclamation, 

GCMRC and TWG on priorities and general budget direction and development. Review the final 

budget recommendation from TWG at its fall meeting and make a final budget recommendation 

to the SOI.

 TWG: Review the initial budget spreadsheet and initial BAHG budget recommendations and 

formulate an initial budget recommendation to AMWG at its spring meeting. Review the draft 

final budget spreadsheet and work plan and make final budget recommendation at its summer 

meeting for AMWG review at its fall meeting. 

 BAHG: Review the initial budget spreadsheet and draft final budget spreadsheet, work plan, and 

hydrograph with GCMCRC and Reclamation, make modifications as necessary, and provide 

recommendations to TWG at its spring and summer meetings. 

 Science Advisors: Participate in TWG and AMWG deliberations on the budget in coordination 

with the Executive Coordinator. Review the final work plan, budget, and hydrograph proposals 

submitted to the AMWG for review and provide written feedback to both GCMRC and the 

AMWG. 

Page 4 
3.9 Criteria for Review and Revisions of the Year-two Budget 

In order for this budget process to be successful in reducing the administrative burden on the GCDAMP it 

must have clear criteria for making changes to the year-two budget. The burden of an appropriate 

rationale for proposing a change falls upon the proposer to make a persuasive argument to the TWG. 

Proposed modifications to the budget will be prepared and distributed to the TWG two weeks ahead of a 

TWG meeting using an agreed upon format (to be provided by GCMRC). The TWG will determine if the 

argument meets the criteria agreed upon in this section. The following criteria will be used by GCMRC, 

Reclamation, and TWG in making recommendations to AMWG on changes to the year-two budget: 

 Scientific requirement or merit: New information gained during the implementation of 

monitoring and research projects may result in a need to alter methods, scope, or timelines in the 

work plan or substantially alter or eliminate a project. This is a science-based need based on the 

experience of implementing an already approved project. This does not represent a shifting 

priority of individual GCDAMP members, but a scientific learning process which results in 

needed modifications to carry out the goals. 

 Administrative needs: Administrative or programmatic changes may occur within the time-frame 

of an approved budget. Examples include the mitigation of an impact as a result of ESA 

consultation or tribal consultation, a change in the “overhead” charges of a federal or state 

agency, a significant reduction of the balance of the Colorado River Basin Fund or a failure to 

secure NPS permits for work in the Grand Canyon. As soon as an administrative event occurs that 

affects the budget, GCMRC (or relevant agency – such as DOI) will notify the TWG. Depending 

upon the magnitude or urgency of the event, the TWG Chair will add an agenda item to the next 

TWG meeting or convene a TWG conference call. 

 Unfunded projects and carryover funds: In developing the budget, TWG will recommend a 

prioritized list of unfunded projects in the budget and work plan, such that in the case that funds 

are available in year-one or two beyond what was anticipated, those projects can be funded in that 

order. The TWG, at its next scheduled meeting will determine if there are other considerations 

regarding it’s prioritized list that should be considered when implementing those projects. These 

unfunded projects would also be considered for funding through the 3-year appropriated funds 

process. 

 New initiatives: New initiatives or modifications to projects that may or may not be based on a 

scientific merit must be vetted through AMWG before they can be recommended by TWG in a 

final budget. New initiatives considered by the AMWG must be fully described and submitted to 

the AMWG in advance of an AMWG meeting. The TWG will discuss proposed new starts via the 

BAHG soon after the annual reporting workshop. The BAHG will consider those and if the 

BAHG finds merit in the proposal(s), and the TWG so recommends, those will be presented to 

AMWG by the TWG Chair at the next AMWG meeting. AMWG will consider whether to direct 

TWG to work on these new initiatives or whether to consider them during the next full budget 

cycle. Given that the budget will likely be fully accounted for, direction on where to locate the 

funds within the current budget will be requested from AMWG. 

3.10 Strategic 3-year Budget Outlook 

Annually, the GCDAMP would prepare a strategic 3-year outlook budget spreadsheet (no workplan) that 

describes major funding needs by program and any unfunded initiatives that are foreseen. This would help 

to determine whether the GCDAMP would seek funding, likely from federal appropriations, in addition to 

the hydropower revenues that provide the majority of funding for the program. 

Page 5 
Table 1. Description of the approximate timelines for milestones and activities in the development of a 

biennial budget and consideration of changes to the second year of the budget. 

Month Year-One 

(development of BWPH) 

Year-Two 

(changes to year-two) 

December 

GCMRC, Reclamation, and cooperators 

produce the annual project reports 

document 

GCMRC, Reclamation, and cooperators 

produce the annual project reports document 

January 

Annual reports meeting (2 days) followed 

by 1-day TWG meeting to review TWG 

concerns and provide guidance to the 

BAHG. TWG reviews progress in 

addressing Information Needs and 

research accomplishments arising from 

the annual reports meeting and other 

information provided by GCMRC and 

Reclamation. 

Annual reports meeting (2 days) followed by 

1-day TWG meeting to review budget and 

provide guidance to BAHG on any potential 

changes to consider for year-two of the 

budget. TWG reviews progress in addressing 

Information Needs and research 

accomplishments arising from the annual 

reports meeting and other information 

provided by GCMRC and Reclamation. 

FebruaryMarch 

GCMRC and Reclamation will provide 

initial biennial budget spreadsheet to the 

BAHG. BAHG meets to consider an 

initial budget recommendation to TWG 

focusing on priorities and major issues to 

be reconciled. 

GCMRC and Reclamation will provide a 

revised budget spreadsheet (for year-two) and 

any modified project work plans to the 

BAHG. Abbreviated BAHG review of 

recommended changes based on the criteria 

will occur with a recommendation to TWG at 

its next meeting. 

March 

TWG meets to consider an initial budget 

recommendation to AMWG including 

consideration of a draft hydrograph 

provided by Reclamation. Consider 

priorities for funding, major unresolved 

issues, and guidance from AMWG on 

general direction. 

TWG and SA will review BAHG 

recommended changes to year-two of the 

BWPH and make recommendations to 

AMWG. If no new initiatives that weren’t 

already prioritized and funded with carry-over 

are proposed, then this can represent a final 

recommendation. If new initiatives that 

require AMWG initial review and changing 

priorities are proposed, then this would 

represent an initial proposal for AMWG 

review at their next meeting. 

Early May 

AMWG meets to consider TWG’s initial 

budget recommendation and provide 

guidance to TWG on priorities, general 

direction, and guidance on any major 

unresolved issues. 

AMWG meets to consider changes to yeartwo of the BWPH. If new initiatives are 

proposed by TWG, provide guidance to TWG 

on priorities, general direction, and guidance 

on any new initiatives. If TWG has proposed a 

final recommendation, then consider and 

provide a recommendation to the SOI if 

changes are needed. 

May-June 

GCMRC and Reclamation provides the 

work plan to the BAHG and SAs by early 

May for their consideration of a BWPH to 

TWG. 

IF NEEDED: GCMRC and Reclamation work 

with the BAHG to implement new initiatives 

as requested by AMWG (based on TWG’s 

recommendations). 

Late 

June/Early 

July 

TWG meets to consider a BAHG 

recommendation, SA review comments, 

and hydrograph, for a recommendation to 

IF NEEDED: TWG meets to consider yeartwo recommended changes and provide a 

recommendation to AMWG. 

Page 6 
AMWG on a BWPH. 

Late 

August/Ear

ly 

September 

AMWG meets to consider a BWPH 

recommendation from TWG in order to 

make a recommendation to the SOI. 

IF NEEDED: AMWG meets to consider a 

BWPH recommendation from TWG in order 

to make a recommendation to the SOI. 

September 

SOI reviews the budget and work plan 

recommendation from AMWG. 

If changes are recommended by AMWG, the 

SOI reviews the budget and work plan 

recommendation. 

Page 7 
Figure 1. Collaborative science planning and implementation process from GCMRC’s Strategic Science 

Plan. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Department of the Interior have 

lead responsibility for the shaded boxes. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center has lead 

responsibility for the boxes that are not shaded. 

SSP

  MRP

BWP

Annual  

Work  

Activities

Annual/Final

Reports

Annual

Review

5‐year Analysis

• SCORE Report

• KA Report

AMPSP

5‐Year

Analysis and

Report

Ann

An

Repo

ual

alysis &

rt

Annual

Analysis &

Report

Other Plans:

• HBC Comp Plan

• NPS CRMP

• Colorado River AOP

• NEPA documents and

Biological Opinions.

Figure 2. Representation of the two-year budget process in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program (attached pdf). 

Page 8