United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OFTHE SECRETARY 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

MM • 4 all 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

From: Anne 

Assistant 

Castle, 

Secretary 

Secretary's 

for Water 

Designee, 

and Science 

~~ 

Re: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Workplan and Budget - Technical 

Work Group and Adaptive Management Work Group Suggested Roles 

I am writing to provide you with updated information on the development of this year's Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) workplan and associated budget. 

Over the past months, we have had many conversations about how the Adaptive Management 

Work Group (AMWG) can most efficiently utilize its time and further improve the effectiveness 

of the GCDAMP, consistent with the goals of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. I am acutely 

aware of the fact that the stakeholder groups represented on the AMWG provide top level 

leadership as their designated AMWG representatives, and I want to ensure that the collective 

knowledge, judgment, and experience of AMWG members is put to the most valuable use. 

The AMWG has recognized for some time that the GCDAMP is transitioning its adaptive 

management process from a concentration on large-scale experimental science to more focus on 

management actions based on learning gained from existing and ongoing science. An important 

element of this transition is the refinement of the activities and priorities ofthe Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), as described in my memorandum to Kate Kitchell, 

Mark Sogge, and Ted Melis dated March 31, 2011 that was distributed to the AMWG. 

In 2010, the AMWG established a two-year non-rolling process for review of the 

GCMRClReclamation workplan and budget, partly in order to reduce the amount of time spent 

by the AMWG stakeholders (as well as GCMRC) on detail-level budget issues. Similarly, the 

excellent assessment conducted by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution 

(USIECR) in connection with the review of the AMWG Charter notes the view expressed by 

many AMWG members that the AMWG has been excessively focused on the GCDAMP budget. 

The review concludes that the AMWG would be better utilized if the discussions were directed 

more toward policy consultation and conducted at a more substantive, less detailed level. 

1 
More specifically, we have had multiple discussions at AMWG meetings on the shared desire 

and need to avoid "getting in the weeds" on budget issues. The USIECR report also 

recommends, based on input from AMWG members, that the Secretary should delineate more 

specifically the issues on which the AMWG's advice is requested and focus the agenda on those 

science and policy priorities. This recommendation is fully consistent with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act and its implementing regulations. I This memo sets forth a vision for effective 

utilization of the expertise of the AMWG and Technical Work Group (TWG) in connection with 

the AMP workplan and budget review, consistent with the factors and sentiments set forth above. 

The AMWG has received the Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Workplanning Process, which was 

distributed with the March 31, 2011 memo on priorities. I've attached a copy of that document 

to this memo for your convenience and for your consideration. This proposed process and 

timeline reflects the priorities and transitions described above, and the implementation of the 

two-year non-rolling budget and planning process. It also provides target dates for workplan and 

budget review. As the second year of a two-year budget cycle, a full work plan would not be 

developed in FY2012 because second year changes would be expected to reflect only minor 

corrections, consistent with the process AMWG adopted on May 6, 2010 ("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 workplan would be provided in addition to a 

modified budget spreadsheet."). 

I recognize that it was only a year ago that AMWG approved the biennial budget process, and 

this proposed GCMRC Workplanning Process timeline represents additional tweaking. I 

believe, however, that it is consistent with the process and planning document that the AMWG 

approved on May 6, 2010, which was explicitly intended "to reduce the effort currently 

expended on the budget process while maintaining a high-quality adaptive management 

program." The streamlined process proposed by GCMRC is intended to make more effective 

use of AMWG, TWG, and Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) members' time, and is also consistent 

with the discussions about GCDAMP policy and priorities described above. 

1 See e.g., 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.95(b): "Focus on mission. Advisory committee members and staff should be fully 

aware of the advisory committee's miSSion, limitations, if any, on its duties, and the agency's goals and objectives. 

In general, the more specific an advisory committee's tasks and the more focused its activities are, the higher the 

likelihood will be that the advisory committee will fUlfill its mission." 

2 
The revised draft FY20 12 workplan and budget has been developed over the last two mo~ths by 

OCMRC and Reclamation based on input from the TWO and the DOl agencies. OCMRC and 

Reclamation have also developed a summary narrative describing the decision-making process 

for the FY2012 workplan and budget, the relationship of various budgeted activities to the 

priorities established, and the funding requirements of (and necessary tradeoffs for) certain 

additional activities that have not been budgeted but that may be of interest to the TWO and 

AMWO. The workplan summary is organized around the four DFCs: Colorado River 

Ecosystem, Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Hydropower. As explained in the 

memorandum, the budget also considers the 24 recommendations TWO provided following its 

March 2011 meeting as well as other priorities. These materials were shared with the DOl 

agencies in April and are being provided to the AMWO, BAHO, and TWO with the AMWO 

meeting materials. It should be emphasized that the workplan summary and budget overview 

provided to the AMWO do not reflect detailed review and subsequent feedback by the BAHO or 

the TWO as those processes will occur subsequent to the provision of the AMWO meeting 

documents. These materials are intended to allow the AMWO to focus on "big picture" issues 

at the May 18 meeting and provide any associated input to OCRMC, Reclamation, and TWO 

representatives to inform the next stages of review. 

Following input from the BAHO and Science Advisors, the TWO will consider the revised 

FY2012 workplan and budget materials at its June meeting. That process will allow for any 

TWO recommendations to the AMWO on significant unresolved issues to be considered at the 

August AMWO meeting. I will be seeking your feedback on these proposed process changes at 

the May 18 AMWO meeting in order to help further refine our efforts, especially as we move 

toward planning for FY20 13 and beyond. 

This revised workplan process invests the BAHO and TWO with significant responsibility for 

working closely with OCMRC and Reclamation to resolve detailed or complex issues. The goal 

is to elevate to the AMWO only science and policy issues related to the workplan and budget and 

avoid detailed discussion of specific line items at the AMWO level. Consequently, I am asking 

the TWO members and TWO Chair to determine how best to ensure that in-depth financial 

questions and tradeoffs are addressed at the TWO level and not elevated to the AMWO. This 

will necessarily require the exercise of judgment by the TWO and TWO Chair to distinguish 

policy issues from budget detail. It will be necessary for TWO members to be fully prepared to 

discuss and resolve issues at the TWO meetings rather than waiting until the August AMWO 

meeting to make recommendations for program changes. The TWO Chair has the authority to 

guide the TWO in these discussions, and must also ensure that the BAHO and TWO review of 

the workplan and budget occurs in a timely manner. 

3 
As AMWG members we must all be cognizant of the need to credit the work performed by the 

skilled members of the TWG and BAHG, as well as GCMRC and Reclamation, and to focus our 

discussions on policy issues rather than budget detail. At the May 18 meeting, we will dedicate 

some time for discussion about the types of budget policy issues the AMWG would think 

appropriate to be raised by the TWG, so as to provide further guidance. 

I greatly appreciate the thoughtful comments of many AMWG and TWG members on this 

subject and the efforts to more effectively utilize the time and expertise of the AMWG for the 

benefit of the entire Adaptive Management Program. I believe the proposed changes move us in 

a positive direction, and look forward to discussing them with you further at our upcoming 

meeting in Phoenix. 

4