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.