Page 1

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Agenda Item Information

April 3, 2013

Agenda Item

GCDAMP 2013-14 and 2015-16 Biennial Work Plan and Budget

Action Requested

 Provide updates on recent proposed changes.

 Develop ideas for May BAHG discussions.

Presenters

Glen Knowles, Chief, Adaptive Management Group, Upper Colorado Region, Bureau of 

Reclamation

Jack Schmidt, Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U. S. Geological Survey

Shane Capron, Budget Ad Hoc Group Chair

Previous Action Taken

 By TWG: development of budget discussion items during the January 2013 Annual Reporting 

meeting that were tabled until this April meeting.

Background Information

The purpose of this agenda item is to review the GCDAMP biennial budget process including 

considerations for prioritization, continue thinking about what potential changes to the second year 

of the FY 2013-14 budget may be necessary, and begin to consider big picture needs for 

development of the 2015-16 biennial budget and work plan.

By way of review, Assistant Secretary Anne Castle provided direction to GCMRC regarding science 

planning in a memo to Kate Kitchell, Mark Sogge, and Ted Melis on March 31, 2011. Assistant 

Secretary Castle directed GCMRC to primarily focus on the DFCs that were, at the time, still in draft 

form. Within that context, the Assistant Secretary urged that GCMRC more narrowly focus on some 

key DFCs, “because the DFCs are very comprehensive” and it was assumed that insufficient funds 

existed to focus on every DFC. The priorities provided in this memo are that GCMRC should 

“concentrate its resources” on

“... compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which means focus on the native

fish and particularly the humpback chub,”

“... focus on sediment, which was an instigating factor for the Grand Canyon

Protection Act and continues to be an issue with resources downstream of the

dam. That includes being able to respond if the high flow protocol goes forward,”

and
GCDAMP 2013-14 and 2015-16 Biennial Work Plan and Budget

Page 2

“... science on both non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery.”

Assistant Secretary Castle also observed that “while cultural resources remain a very high

priority, it is not clear that there are significant science questions involving those resources, or

the [Temperature Control Device], that require attention at this time.” Castle also indicated that

core monitoring activities in other resource areas should continue. The overall objective of her

guidance was “to enable GCMRC to better direct its limited resources and resist the Christmas

tree approach to science planning.”

In August 2004 the AMWG established priorities for the GCDAMP in a consensus motion: 

MOTION: To adopt TWG-recommended budget process, adding an annual priority-setting 

session by AMWG, and adding an interim step of review and feedback on the budget and 

workplan by AMWG before approval of the budget. Motion approved by consensus.

NOTE: To fully explicate the above vote, the questions raised pertaining to the five priorities are 

listed below:

1. Why are the humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How many 

humpback chub are there and how are they doing?

2. What is the best flow regime?

3. What will happen when we test or implement the TCD? How should it be operated? Are 

safeguards needed for management?

4. What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it?

5. Which cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the APE, which should we treat, and 

how do we best protect them? What are the status and trends of cultural resources and what 

are the agents of deterioration?

Discussion has continued at the AMWG and TWG as to whether these program priorities are still 

valid and/or whether they should be updated. 

At this point in the budget development process, the TWG should be considering any changes to 

the FY 2014 budget. In January 2013, the TWG met during the annual reporting meeting and heard 

updates on the research and monitoring program 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/AnnualReportingMeeting.aspx). The TWG had some discussion on 

potential budget changes.

The TWG identified the following budget items specific to the 2014 budget review:

1. Increased aggregation sampling of HBC to reduce sampling errors in enumeration. (Davis)

2. Look at additional or new capture points for tagging trout in the natal origins rainbow trout 

study to eliminate possible sample errors for ascertaining the degree of downstream 

movement. (Davis)

3. Improve detection levels for HBC in the mainstem to confirm estimates (Davis).

4. What elements of the administrative history project require funding? Conduct a pilot effort 

on those elements in FY2014 and use the results to develop a more thorough undertaking in 

the next budget cycle, if warranted. (Stevens)
GCDAMP 2013-14 and 2015-16 Biennial Work Plan and Budget

Page 3

5. Phragmites is this an ecologically and culturally important species that is highly responsive to 

dam operations. Compile background data and information, including Tribal significance, in 

2014 in a pilot analysis, and if feasible, conduct the analysis in the next budget cycle in the 

context of integration of TEK within the AMP (AR meeting).

TWG has also identified the following general items for longer-term budget discussions (i.e. 

FY15-16):

1. Investigate whether a criterion should be added when considering whether to conduct 

another HFE to include the current volume of riverbed sand and not just the amount that 

has entered (Davis). Long-term sand mass budget is affected by intervening operations that 

affect the HFEs, are there considerations or lessons learned going forward in future HFEs? 

Pose the issue to independent reviewers, determine if additional analyses are warranted. 

What is the trend of sand input from major tributaries? (AR meeting). 

2. What elements of the Species of Management Concern (Goal 3) work should be considered 

for funding in the next budget cycle?

3. Based on the results of the NPS fisheries program, how can the AMP assist the NPS to 

accomplish its fisheries goals?

4. Do we know what is driving humpback chub population dynamics (up/down)? Why are 

they trending up now? If population trends for RBT and HBC are going up, what does that 

mean for the relationship of trout to humpback chub? Decide how to determine this in 

FY2014 and if there is a reasonable approach, address it in the next budget cycle. (AR 

meeting)

5. Is the LCR reaching carrying capacity for humpback chub, are their opportunities in the 

mainstem to expand the population, are the aggregations at capacity? (AR meeting)

6. Why do Lees Ferry and Marble Canyon retain rainbow trout? Is there a new experimental 

design that is needed? Is there significant trout spawning below Lees Ferry that contributes 

to abundance? (AR meeting)

7. Are there dam operations that would benefit the ecosystem post-Tamarisk decline? Consider 

intensifying monitoring of tamarisk-dominated pre-dam terraces for erosion. Consider 

studying tamarisk growth in relation to river flows and if justified, consider including that in 

the next budget cycle. How will over-flight imagery support this study? (AR meeting)

8. Will food base research help us better understand the relationship of steady/fluctuation 

flows vs. food availability for fish? Consider having the science advisors conduct an unbiased 

meta-analysis from other systems. (AR meeting)

9. Implications of equalization flows on physical and biological resources? Analyze the issue of 

which management options best conserve sediment mass balance during equalization years, 

and how such flows align with policy considerations in those years. (AR meeting).

GCMRC has also identified the following long-term issues for consideration:

1. To what degree did the FY13/14 BWP address the priority science questions that were 

defined in August 2004? 

2. To what degree have the priority science questions that were defined in August 2004 now 

been addressed by the HFE Protocol EA and the NNFC EA? To the degree to which the 

priority science questions are now being addressed by these EAs, does that situation redefine 

the role of GCMRC in addressing these questions? Does this redefine the expectations of 

TWG in when/how monitoring and research is addressed?
GCDAMP 2013-14 and 2015-16 Biennial Work Plan and Budget

Page 4

3. To what degree have the priority science questions that were defined in August 2004 been 

subsumed in the LTEMP EIS process? To the degree to which the priority science 

questions are now being addressed by the LTEMP program, does that situation redefine the 

roles of GCMRC in addressing these questions? Does this redefine the expectations of 

TWG in when/how monitoring and research are addressed?

GCMRC identified the following in evaluating how the August 2004 priority science 

questions (the 5 priority questions listed above) have been addressed:

1. GCMRC is proceeding with a number of high priority field and laboratory studies 

concerning humpback chub life history, longitudinal distribution, food base, and 

competition/predation by trout, as well as studies related to temperature effects of these 

interactions.

2. This is a policy level question being addressed by the entirely of the LTEMP EIS.

3. Temperature effects are addressed in a range of ways in the GCMRC fish monitoring and 

research program, and temperature control is being considered in the LTEMP EIS.

4. The impact of fine-sediment deficit and what to do about it is primarily addressed by the 

HFE Protocol EA and there is a large part of the GCMRC budget that implements this EA. 

The “what difference does sediment loss make to the Grand Canyon ecosystem” is party 

addressed by Project A, and has been a continuing focus of our science talks with the 

stakeholders.

5. Project J in part focuses on informing discussion about the APE and the effects of dam 

operations on archeological resources.
Streamlined GCMRC biennial work planning process — ver March 20, 2011  

1

Table 1. Approximate timelines for a streamlined process for development of a biennial workplan and budget

(BWP), plus consideration of changes to the second year of the budget. Dates shown are estimated targets.

Month Year‐1  (FY11)

(development of biennial workplan & budget)

Year‐2   (FY12)

(consideration of year‐2 of biennial workplan & budget)

November USGS produces GCMRC annual project

reports document

USGS produces GCMRC annual project reports

document

January

Annual reports meeting (2 days) followed

by 1‐day TWG meeting to review budget

and provide guidance to GCMRC and BOR.

TWG reviews progress in addressing

Information Needs and research

accomplishments.

Annual reports meeting (2 days) followed by 1‐day

TWG meeting to review GCMRC budget and provide

guidance to USGS and BOR on any potential changes

to consider for year‐2 of the budget. TWG reviews

progress in addressing Information Needs and

research accomplishments.

February‐ 

1. Based on a revised SSP/MRP, DOI

establishes/updates general work plan

priorities/hydrograph assumptions and

communicates those to AMWG

2. USGS and BOR will meet will meet with

the DOI family to solicit their input on

DOI priorities and major issues to be

reconciled. Any disagreements will be

resolved by DOI in consultation with

the DOI Family

USGS initiates internal review of BWP in relation to

ASWS priorities and funding constraints. Identifies

proposed revisions and analyzes

scenarios/implications.

March

GCMRC and BOR will develop an initial

biennial budget spreadsheet based on DOI

priorities and input from (a) scientist and

TWG provide at the AR meeting and (b) the

DOI family.  

USGS provides initial draft BWP spreadsheet for

ASWS consideration.

April

TWG meets to consider and provide input

on the initial GCMRC/BOR budget

recommendation. Unresolved issues or

conflicting priorities will be resolved by DOI

in consultation with the DOI family

 USGS meets with the DOI family to solicit input

on draft BWP.

 USGS provides revised draft BWP and briefing to

ASWS.

May

GCMRC and BOR provide a draft BWP to

the TWG and SA for their review and

comment.   

 USGS provides draft BWP to the BAHG and SA

for review.

 BAHG meets to consider and provide input on

the draft BWP.

June

TWG meets to provide input on the initial

GCMRC and BOR budget recommendation

and provide a recommendation to the

AMWG.  

 USGS provides a final draft BWP to the TWG and

SA for review.

 TWG meets to provide input on the final draft

BWP.  

July GCMRC and BOR provides a final draft BWP  

to the AMWG for their review

USGS revises and provides final draft BWP to the

AMWG for their review.

August

AMWG meets to provide input  on the

GCMRC and BOR draft BWPs and provide a

recommendation to the SOI

AMWG meets to provide input  on the final draft

BWP and provide a recommendation to the SOI

September SOI reviews the budget and work plan

recommendation from AMWG.

SOI reviews the budget and work plan

recommendation from AMWG.
Streamlined GCMRC biennial work planning process — ver March 20, 2011  

2

Criteria for Review and Revisions of the Year-two Budget 

In order for BWP development process to be successful in reducing the administrative burden on the GCMRC, 

BOR and 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. 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, 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-frameof 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. 

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

merit must be vetted through DOI. DOI will consider whether to direct GCMRC/BOR 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 DOI.
GCDAMP BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS 

Approved by AMWG on May 6, 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. 

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, and with input from the CRAHG, 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. 

 Other Cooperators: Other agencies and cooperators that are conducting work relevant to the 

GCDAMP are invited to submit workplans for inclusion in the GCDAMP and report upon those 

workplans at the Annual Reports Meeting. 

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 

TWG meets to consider a BAHG 

recommendation, SA review comments, 

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

Page 6 
July and hydrograph, for a recommendation to 

AMWG on a BWPH. 

recommendation to AMWG. 

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