Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) Conference Call

June 17, 2013 (10:a – 12p, MDT)

Meeting Notes

BAHG Chair: Shane Capron

Facilitator: Robert Wheeler, Triangle Associates, Inc.  

Participants:

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Marianne Crawford, USBR

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors

John Hamill, Federation of Fly Fishers

Leslie James, CREDA

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona

Robert King, State of Utah

Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado

John Jordan, TWG Chair

Glen Knowles, USBR

Don Ostler, States of New Mexico and Wyoming

Chris Schill, USGS/GCMRC

Jack Schmidt, USGS/GCMRC

Warren Turkett, Colorado River Conservation Board

Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC

Mark Van Vlack, State of California

Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe

Agenda and Review of Documents:  

Bob Wheeler did a roll call.  

Review Process documents.  

Shane Capron referenced the background information sent out (Attachment 1) on June 13, 2013.

Review Revised Budget by GCMRC and Reclamation.  (Attachment 2)  

Due to sequestration, a 5.1% cut to the FY13 Budget is required which is $532,939. Cost savings due to travel

restrictions and the following potential changes to the budget are proposed to cover sequestration:  

 Facilitation budget for FY13 = $41,747 and for FY14 = 43,000; FY13 = $82,942 and FY14 = $85,430

o The increase to facilitation is primarily a result of the three individuals from Triangle attending the

Annual Reporting meeting in January 2013 and other additions to the original scope of work.  

They attended to become acquainted with the science and other programs that was being

reported on.  

o Cost saving as a result of having TWG webinars rather than meetings can be reallocated to cover

facilitation.

 Native Fish Conservation Carryover Fund for FY13 = $782,660 and FY14 = $1,321,139

 Triggers for trout removal haven’t been met for several years, consequently this fund has not been

used.  The 5.1% cut from sequestration ($532,939)when applied to this fund leaves $249,721 and

insures that other projects are fully funded. If the sequester is applied in FY14 at 8% ($861K) it could

again come from nonnative fish carryover, leaving $418,658 in FY 14. Reclamation won’t know if

sequestration will continue in FY 14 until next fiscal year (October 1).

Tribal Participation in LTEMP EIS Process. Funding in the Reclamation Cultural Program has been

reallocated to direct funds to tribes to provide tribal input in the EIS process.  

Concerns:

 Webinars/conference calls.  
Budget Ad Hoc Group Conference Call

Meeting Notes of June 17, 2013    Page 2

o Some members feel the webinar format doesn’t accommodate communication well but due

to travel restrictions, it saves on travel dollars and the savings  can be applied to other budget

needs.

 LTEMP EIS expenditures for the FY11‐12‐13 budgets?

o Glen will provide those on the TWG webinar next week.

 Develop concrete objectives for the October TWG meeting.

 A priority should be to have in‐person science reporting (AR) meetings.

 Return to historical facilitation costs and allow for more in‐person meetings.

 Facilitation for TWG meetings has not always been used  

 Prepare “best” and “worst” case scenarios for the FY14 budget.

o Glen will prepare two budgets for the TWG’s review next week: (1) one with FY 14 8% cut, and (2)

one without the 8% cut.

 Are funds available to do an HFE in FY14?

o Yes.  

o Reclamation will be reporting FY 2012 HFE results to FWS before doing the next HFE.  

 Status of Programmatic Agreement.

o Reclamation is in the process of developing a new PA. The new PA is being done in conjunction

with the LTEMP EIS in order to be consistent with the outcome of the LTEMP EIS and the ROD.

When the PA is more complete, Reclamation will schedule a PA meeting with current and new PA

signatories.

Dr. Schmidt reported they have ongoing evaluations from the November HFE on sediment and fish. Monitoring

for the HFE is imbedded in the FY13‐14 work plan which is also in the science plans for the two EAs. The natal

origins study on trout in Glen Canyon has been ongoing through the winter, spring and summer.  GCMRC’s next

reporting period is winter of 2014. He provided two PPTs, one FY13/14 specifics (Attachment 3) and

questions/issues to ponder in developing the FY15/16 budget (Attachment 4).

Potential Budget Changes. Shane opened discussion on other suggestions for budget consideration:

1. Increased aggregation sampling of HBC to reduce sampling errors in enumeration, improve detection

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

Scott Vanderkooi reported that numbers of fish in aggregations  increased in July and September.  GCMRC

has also been working with FWS and GCNP to increase mark recapture efforts at key aggregations and  

consider translocations to tributaries (Havasu and Shinumo).  There is concern about the effects of over

sampling so they will alternate sites. Bill Davis can bring up any other concerns on the TWG webinar next

week.

Action: No changes proposed.

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)

GCMRC has a robust sampling program around the LCR.  AGFD will be doing electrofishing through the

same reach.  Dr. Schmidt said that Josh Korman’s work is in the primary data collection phase and

sampling should not be changed. Further consideration will be made in January 2014 when Josh Korman

has a chance to analyze data from this year.

Action: No changes proposed.
Budget Ad Hoc Group Conference Call

Meeting Notes of June 17, 2013    Page 3

3. 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)

This is a new project and should be considered for the FY15‐16 budget. The AHAHG should consider needs

for funding, including review of the original administrative history report, and be prepared to provide

input to the TWG in January 2014.

Action: No changes proposed.

4. Consider a base budget that would include cuts similar to the sequestration cuts to the experimental

fund, but keep that money in the budget for other projects. (Hamill)

John Hamill noted the demand for doing NNFC is less than when the budget was put in place. Are there

higher priorities for using these funds? Using NNFC funds is a gamble but we must be prepared should the

need arise. The LTEMP EIS will likely bring about some changes in management approaches for trout and

the native fishery. The NPS Fish Management Plan proposes new measures for managing those fisheries.

Since there were no immediate projects waiting for funding we will leave the money where it is. If

changes in the budget need to be made it provides flexibility but a cap should  be established on the

amount in the carryover fund.  

Action: No changes proposed, it was determined that without projects needing funding in 2014 that the

money would be left in the carryover fund for the base case budget.

Budget Recommendation

The BAHG did not make any further changes to the 2014 budget beyond what was proposed by BOR/GCMRC in

the base case budget and the budget modified for sequestration. The BAHG recommended that the TWG review

both budgets and consider recommending the base budget without the cuts, but also providing the modified

budget in case that needs to be implemented under sequestration.

Shane reminded everyone the next TWG Webinar/conference call will be held:

Date:  Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Time:  9 a.m. (AZ/PDT) / 10 a.m. (MDT) / 1 p.m. (EDT)

Telephone #:  866‐916‐4287  Passcode 5287707  

URL:  https://ucbor.webex.com/ucbor/j.php?ED=205387972&UID=0&PW=NNjAwYzFmZGU3&RT=MiM2

Call ended:  11:58 a.m. (MDT)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG)

Date: (Mon) June 17, 2013

Time: 9-11a (PDT & AZ), 10a-12noon (MDT)

Phone #: 877-932-7704

Passcode: 8410783

BACKGROUND

At its August 2012 meeting, AMWG approved the FY 2013-14 biennial budget and workplan. 

LINK. AMWG approved a budget protocol which was updated with a “streamlined” budget table 

of actions (attached). Please note that the focus of this BAHG meeting and the TWG June meeting 

relates to changes to FY 2014 budget and not FY 15/16. Anne Castle, at the April AMWG meeting,

specifically directed that discussions on FY15/16 budgets are not to occur at this point due to 

uncertainties in the overall budget process.

CONSIDERATION

The BAHG is instructed to consider potential changes to the FY 2013-14 budget, per the revised 

criteria for consideration of year-two of the budget per the “streamlined” budget process document 

(attached). The starting point will be modifications proposed by GCRMC and BOR to the budget, 

which will include budget changes due to sequestration. That budget will be provided to all BAHG 

members as soon as it becomes available.

POTENTIAL CHANGES

1. Increased aggregation sampling of HBC to reduce sampling errors in enumeration, improve 

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

AGENDA

1. Review process documents.

2. Review revised budget provided by GCMRC and BOR.

3. Discuss potential changes to the 2014 budget, consider if they meet the criteria for 

consideration.

4. Develop a recommendation for TWG.
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 
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.
Updated: 06/11/13

Description FY12 w/3.9% 

CPI

FY13 

w/2.0% CPI

FY14 w/3.0 

CPI

AMWG

Personnel Costs - Labor & Burden 184,846 188,543 194,199

AMWG Member Travel Reimb 14,756 15,051 15,503

AMWG Reclamation Travel Reimb. 15,140 15,443 15,906

Facilitation Contract 40,531 82,942 85,430

POAHG Expenses - Labor, Burden, & Travel 59,305 60,491 62,306

Other 8,509 8,679 8,940

Subtotal $323,087 $371,149 $382,283

TWG

Personnel Costs - Labor 92,045 76,667 78,967

TWG Member Travel Reimb. 21,681 15,748 16,220

Reclamation Travel 14,958 8,555 8,812

TWG Chair / Facilitation 30,145 26,022 26,803

Other 2,431 1,878 1,934

Subtotal $161,260 $128,870 $132,736

OTHER

Admin Support NPS Permitting 121,882 124,320 128,049

Contract Administration - Labor, Burden, Travel 42,665 43,518 44,824

Experimental Carryover Funds 507,679 515,000 0

Integrated Tribal Resource Monitoring 152,583 155,635 160,304

Non-Native Fish Suppression Contingency Fund 0 249,721 418,658

Subtotal $824,809 $1,088,194 $751,835

Reclamation Administration and Travel 64,226 127,839 131,310

Cultural Program Implementation 519,500 473,908 373,077

Subtotal $583,726 $601,747 $504,387

Reclamation Power Revenue Costs Total $1,892,882 $2,189,960 $1,771,241

Reclamation Power Revenue w/o Carryover $2,152,632 $1,946,940 $1,874,486

Hopi Tribe $95,000

Hualapai Tribe $95,000

Navajo Nation ($190K deobligated 7/19/10) $95,000

Pueblo of Zuni $95,000

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians $95,000

DOI Agency Appropriated Funds Total $475,000

$475,000 $1,892,882 $2,189,960 $1,771,241

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION

TRIBAL CONTRACTS (Appropriated Funds)

 Total

FY 2013-14 Expenditures for the Bureau of Reclamation

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Overview of Reclamatio

FY 13-14 Budget 

Glen KnowlesBureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program June 17, 2013 BAHG Call
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Proposed Changes

Sequestration – 5.1% cut to the FY2013 Budge

$532,939.

April 3 TWG Webinar – Cost savings to TWG B

but will be reallocated to fund facilitation.

Cultural Program – Updated, some funding has 

redirected to fund tribes to work on LTEMP.
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Adaptive Management Work Gr

Description

FY12 

w/3.9% 

FY1

w/3.0

AMWG

Personnel Costs - Labor & Burden 184,846 190,

AMWG Member Travel Reimb 14,756 15,AMWG Reclamation Travel Reimb. 15,140 15,Facilitation Contract 40,531 41,POAHG Expenses - Labor/Burden/Travel 59,305 61,Other 8,509 8,

Subtotal $323,087 $332,
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Adaptive Management Work Gr

Description

FY12 

w/3.9% 

FY1

w/3.0

AMWG

Personnel Costs - Labor & Burden 184,846 190,

AMWG Member Travel Reimb 14,756 15,AMWG Reclamation Travel Reimb. 15,140 15,Facilitation Contract 40,531 82,POAHG Expenses - Labor/Burden/Travel 59,305 61,Other 8,509 8,

Subtotal $323,087 $373,
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Technical Work Group

TWG FY 12 FY 13 

Personnel Costs - Labor 92,045 94,8TWG Member Travel Reimb. 21,681 22,3Reclamation Travel 14,958 15,4TWG Chair / Facilitation 30,145 31,0Other 2,431 2,5

Subtotal $161,260 $166,0
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Technical Work Group

TWG FY 12 FY 1

Personnel Costs - Labor 92,045 58,5TWG Member Travel Reimb. 21,681 9,1Reclamation Travel 14,958 1,7TWG Chair / Facilitation 30,145 19,1Other 2,431 1,2

Subtotal $161,260 $89,8

Cost savings of April and June TWG Webinar = FY13 $76,279 / FY14 
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Other Costs

OTHER FY 12 FY 13 

Admin Support NPS Permitting 121,882 126,2Contract Administration Labor/Burden/Travel 42,665 43,Experimental Funds 507,679 515,Integrated Tribal Resource Monitoring 152,583 157,Native Fish Conservation Carryover Fund $0 $782,

Subtotal $1,084,559 $1,625,

FY13 5.1% Sequestration Cut = $532,939
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Other Costs Revised

OTHER FY 12 FY 13 

Admin Support NPS Permitting 121,882 126,2Contract Administration Labor/Burden/Travel 42,665 43,Experimental Funds 507,679 515,Integrated Tribal Resource Monitoring 152,583 157,Native Fish Conservation Carryover Fund $0 $249,

Subtotal $1,084,559 $1,092,

FY13 5.1% Sequestration Cut = $532,939
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Other Costs 2014 Sequestor

OTHER FY 12 FY 13 

Admin Support NPS Permitting 121,882 126,2Contract Administration Labor/Burden/Travel 42,665 43,Experimental Funds 507,679 515,Integrated Tribal Resource Monitoring 152,583 157,Native Fish Conservation Carryover Fund $0 $249,

Subtotal $1,084,559 $1,092,

FY14 8.0% Sequestration Cut = $861,063
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Cultural Program

FY 12 FY 13 

Reclamation Administration and Travel 64,226 127,83Cultural Program Implementation 519,500 440,62

Subtotal $583,726 $568,45

Reclamation Power Revenue Total $2,152,632 $2,692,34Reclamation Power Revenue w/o CO $2,152,632 $1,909,68

CULTURAL PROGRAM

FY13 $66,000 $100,000 $10,000 $161,129 $15,000 $

FY14 $50,000 $30,000 $10,000 $156,129 $50,000 $

NNMOA Consult

ImpLTEM

Fiscal Year Treatment Associative

Values

GCMRCSupport

Tribal TEK

Project

Cultural Program Implementation

Activity 

Subtotal (less GCMRC Sup. w/3.0%CPI) DOI Overhead (35%) GCMRC Support Project total 
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Cultural Program Revised

FY 12 FY 13 

Reclamation Administration and Travel 64,226 127,83Cultural Program Implementation 519,500 473,90

Subtotal $583,726 $601,74

Reclamation Power Revenue Total $2,152,632 $2,196,66Reclamation Power Revenue w/o CO $2,152,632 $1,946,94

CULTURAL PROGRAM

FY13 $49,940 $100,000 $0 $161,129 $15,000 $

FY14 $61,354 $30,000 $0 $156,129 $50,000 $

NNMOA Consult

ImpLTEM

Fiscal Year Treatment Associative

Values

GCMRCSupport

Tribal TEK

Project

Cultural Program Implementation

Activity 

Subtotal (less GCMRC Sup. w/3.0%CPI) DOI Overhead (35%) GCMRC Support Project total 
Reclamation FY 2013-14 Budge

Tribal Participation

FY 201

Hopi Tribe 95,00Hualapai Tribe 95,00Navajo Nation 95,00Pueblo of Zuni 95,00Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians 95,00

I Agency Appropriated Funds Total $475,00

TRIBAL CONTRACTS 
FY13/14 specifics

Jack Schmidt

GCMRC
A. Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics ... ($1.45 million) [$1.40 milli

A.1. Sandbar and camping beach monitoring ($258,000) [$262,000]

A.2. Sediment storage monitoring ($588,000) [$598,000]A.3. Investigating eddy sandbar variability ... ($101,000) [$104,000]A.4. Quantifying the correlation between bed and transport grain size ($148A.5. Geochemical signatures of pre‐dam sediment ($51,000) [$51,000]A.6. Control network and survey support ($132,000) [$56,000]

B. Stream flow, water quality, and sediment transport ... ($1.33 mil
C. Water quality monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam

releases ($0.25 million) [$0.25 million]
D. Mainstem humpback chub aggregation studies ($0.36 million) [$0.37 milli

D.1. Aggregation sampling ($197,000) [$200,000]D.2. Natal origins of humpback chub($166,000) [$16
E. Humpback chub early life history near the Little Colorado River ($0.47 milli

E.1. July Little Colorado River marking ($126,000) [$129,000]E.2. Describing food web structure and the potential for food limitation within the 

River ($253,000) [$257,000]

E.3. Population modeling ($88,000) [$90,000]
F. Monitoring of native and nonnative fishes in the mainstem Colora

lower Little Colorado River ($2.29 million) [$2.32 million]

F.1. Systemwide electrofishing ($214,000) [$217,000]F.2. Glen Canyon monitoring ($261,000) ($264,000)F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the Little Colorado River

monitoring ($457,000) [$464,000]

F.4. Little Colorado River monitoring ($805,000) [$811,000]F.5. Stock assessment and structured mark recapture model of humpback chub abund[$20,000]F.6. Detection of rainbow trout movement from Glen Canyon into Marble Canyon ($27F.7. Food base monitoring ($266,000) [$272,000]
G. Interactions between native fish and nonnative trout

($0.27 million) [$0.28 million]

G.1. Laboratory studies ... ($91,000G.2. Efficacy and ecological impactremoval ($178,000) [$182,000]
H. Understanding the factors limiting the growth of rainbow trout in

Glen and Marble Canyons ($0.60 million) [$0.61 million]

H.1.Laboratory feeding studies ($37,000) [$38,000]H.2. Understanding the links among dam operations, environmental con

food base ($238,000) [$244,000]

H.3. Developing a bioenergetics model for large rainbow trout ($135,00H.4. Learning from other Tailwaters ‐‐ a synthesis ($143,000) [$147,000]

H.5. Contingency planning for HFEs and subsequent rainbow trout popu

($43,000) [$45,000]
I. Riparian vegetation studies ($0.37 million) [$0

I.1. Monitor vegetation and channel respo

guilds and landscape scale vegetat

($
J.3. Defining the Extent and Relative Importance of Gully Formation and

Annealing Processes in the Colorado River Ecosystem ($186,000) [$187,000]

J.1. Cultural site monitoring in Glen Canyon ($159,000) [$162,000]

J. Monitoring Cultural Resources at a Small Scale and Defining the Large‐ScaContext of the Processes Affecting Cultural Resources ($534,000) [$540,000]

J.2. Monitoring of Select Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon ($189,000) [$191,000]
USGS administ

$1,570,000 [$

does not include in

projec

Independent Reviews ( $27,000) [$28,000]Science Advisors ($172,000) [$165,000]GCMRC economist and research support$221,000 [$199,000]
FY 13: $10,447,00
FY13: general budget

categories

GCMRC salaries

logistics

trip

costs

cooperators

(non‐USGS)

cooperators

(USGS)

USGS

burden

GIS/RS/electronics

support
Sources of fun

GCMRC FY12

carryover

($0.93 mil)

GCDAMP funding,

other BoR

funding, BoRcarryover funding

(9.52 mil)
GCDAMP funding

(8.91 mil)

GCMRC FY12

carryover

($0.61 mil)

other BoR

funding

($0.42 mil)

BoR carryover funding

($0.57 mil)

FY14 ‐‐ $10,518,400
 Relation among FY13/14 BWP projects, 2004 Priority Science Questio

Protocol EA, and NNFC EA. Do the EAs and the associated FoNSIs red

GCMRC addresses the 2004 Priority Science Questions?

 Have the 2004 Priority Science Questions been subsumed by the LTE

process? How is the development of the FY15/16 BWP to be guide

LTEMP EIS?

 Have the expectations of the AMWG/TWG regarding monitoring an

needs been redefined?

Some Questions/Issues to Ponder in

Developing FY15/16 BWP
Status of 2004 Priority Science

Questions

1) Why are humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? 

humpback chub are there and how are they doing?

a) Decade long focus on humpback chub population estimation and on hum

ecology indicates substantial improvement in humpback chub population

b) FY13/14 BWP has a large focus on humpback chub ecology (4 projects)

2) What is the best flow regime?

a) This is the focus of the HFE Protocol EA and of the LTEMP EIS now being p

3) What will happen when we test or implement a TCD? How should it 

1) Temperature has been a major focus of GCMRC research regarding the fo

interactions between trout and chub.

2) Temperature issues are being evaluated within the LTEMP EIS process.

4) What is the impact of [fine] sediment loss and what should we do ab

1) Project A is a comprehensive investigation of the distribution of fine sedi

results are being linked with resource attributes

2) Other project reports linking fine sediment loss with campsite changes a

specific linkages are being addressed in reports now being finalized.

5) Which cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the APE, which s

and how do we best protect them?

1) Project J3 specifically is linked with APE designation.

2) Monitoring of specific cultural properties remains a controversial issue
Secretarial Directive concerning Environmental Assessments for (1) H

flow Experimental Releases, and (2) Non‐native Fish Control (May 23, 

“I direct ... USGS ... to undertake coordinated implementation of the a

and commitments described and analyzed in the Environmental

Assessments ...”)

2011 Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group

(April 30, 2012: SoI directed AMWG “to utilize these DFCs to inform an

guide the AMWG’s future considerations”)

General Science Plans for the Environmental Assessments

Assistant Secretary’s Guidance Concerning Research and Monitoring

Priorities in GCMRC science planning (March 31, 2011, memo)

Core Monitoring Plan (February 18, 2011, draft)

Monitoring and Research Plan (April 2009)

Priority Questions and Program Goals (August 2004)

Questions, Expectations, Concerns 
FY 13/14 Biennial Work Plan

spring/summer/fall 2013: first fieldseasonfall/winter 2013: data analysis andinterpretationwinter 2014: Annual Reporting Meeting(January) focuses on interpretation of

2013 field season data in a broad

scientific and management context

spring/summer/fall 2014: second field

seasonfall/winter 2014: data analysis and reportpreparationwinter 2015: Annual Reporting Meeting(January) focuses on preliminary final

findings of FY 13/14 BWP

winter 2014: receive stakbased on Annual Reportiwork with AMWG/TWG 

preliminary FY 15/16 wo

FY 15/16 Biennial W

spring 2014: BWP develocollaboration with TWG 

TWG/BAHGsummer 2014: refinemen

consideration by AMWG fall/winter 2014: budget/finalization
FY 13: $10,447,000 [$10,441,000]
FY13: general budget

categories

GCMRC salaries

logistics

trip

costs

cooperators

(non‐USGS)

cooperators

(USGS)

USGS

burden

GIS/RS/electronics

support
Sources of funding for FY13

GCMRC FY12

carryover

($0.93 mil)

GCDAMP funding,

other BoR

funding, BoRcarryover funding

(9.52 mil)
GCDAMP funding

(8.91 mil)

GCMRC FY12

carryover

($0.61 mil)

other BoR

funding

($0.42 mil)

BoR carryover funding

($0.57 mil)

FY14 ‐‐ $10,518,400