Biennial Budget Discussion Paper June 4, 2009 Page 1

Biennial Budget Process Discussion Paper

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

June 12, 2009

1.0  Overview of the issue

The budget process approved in 2004 helped to bring some needed structure to the budget process.

Within that structure, the primary element was a biennial budget and workplan which would roll the

second year of the budget into the first year of the next budget such that each year TWG would develop

a 2 year workplan. This approach was intended to provide some planning benefits in looking forward a

few years and provided opportunity for non‐federal entities to lobby for additional federal funding.

However, some of the benefits envisioned in 2004 may not have materialized and other conditions may

have changed. The FY 10 and 11 workplan was the first attempt at developing a biennial workplan and it

led some members of the TWG family to question whether it was still a good approach. Thus AMWG

requested that this document be developed to contrast the idea of a two‐year rolling budget (approved

in 2004) and a two‐year budget (non‐rolling budget similar to the upper basin RIP).

2.0  History of the 2004 approved biennial budget process and related actions

A concise description of the budget process approved in 2004 does not appear to be in the record.

However, Attachment 1 and 2 provide the best description of the components of the program and

Attachment 3 (AMWG minutes) describes some of the discussion which took place. The TWG minutes

from July 1, 2004 provide no explanation except for the budget motion. Thus, description of the

approved process is taken primarily from Attachment 1 and 2. A key premise of the budget process was

that core monitoring would be developed and much of the budget (potentially up to 95%) would be

agreed upon and only a small fraction of the research would be open for debate each year.

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

 Two year budget and workplans with rollover of year 2 into year 1 of the next biennial budget,

and would include (yet undeveloped) criteria for reopening the budget

 Appropriations request for Federal agency budget or for Congressional write‐in

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

develop draft out‐year projects

 Fiscal Reporting, expenditures for the previous fiscal year

 Project Progress Reports, mid‐year and end end‐of‐year reports

 Budget Spreadsheet (like our current one will be used) and workplan

Appropriations Request:  During the 2004 process, the BAHG recommended the formation of a new

TWG/AMWG ad hoc, or supplementation of the BAHG, to investigate appropriations request

process and identify format and content for this request process. Consider appropriations requests

by federal agencies in the President’s budget and requests to Congress by non‐federal stakeholders.

This appropriations funding component for non‐funded research activities was seen as an important

benefit of the biennial budget.

AMWG April 29‐30, 2009

Motion: Develop a discussion paper on the pros and cons of the two budget approaches described in

Issue of Concern #9, for submittal to AMWG at its August meeting.  
Biennial Budget Discussion Paper June 4, 2009 Page 2

TWG July 1, 2004

Motion: TWG recommends that the budget process specified by the budget ad hoc group be considered

by the AMWG for adoption at its august meeting and applied to the ’06 budget with details on reporting

to be provided by GCMRC. The motion included the Kubly presentation (Attachment 1) and excel

timeline spreadsheet (Attachment 2).

AMWG August 9‐11, 2004

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. (Attachment 3)

AMWG April 13, 2001

AMMG approved Appendix H to the AMP Strategic Plan which outlines a budget process and

recommendations. (Attachment 4)

3.0  Description of a two‐year non‐rolling budget process

An alternative to a rolling budget would be a two‐year non‐rolling budget (see Attachment 5). This is the

approach taken by the upper basin RIP. The process is fairly simple, you develop a two‐year budget the

first year of the process. Then, in the second year you revisit year two of the budget and make only

small corrections in the budget to allow for minor changes in projects or potential new starts not

envisioned during year 1. The key benefit to this process is that substantial effort is saved in year 2 of

the budget process allowing for time and effort to be used in evaluation research and other activities

instead of working on a budget. The rest of the process would be as described in 2004, reporting

requirements, budget spreadsheets and a workplan would all be developed. We would also still hold the

annual reports meeting workshop in January to review progress on the previous year’s workplan.

4.0  Comparison of the pros and cons of the two budget processes

There appears to be general support for a 2‐year budget process of some approach. The benefits of

looking forward two years allows for better planning and consideration of how the budget will change as

projects sunset and new responsibilities arise, it helps to promote planning. The two processes are really

quite similar and come down to just a few key issues. First, in 2004 an important consideration in

developing the two year budget was an ambition to use the out‐year budget to lobby for unfunded

research projects. This was seen as a way to expand the research program with funds from outside the

program. However, this lobbying effort never really materialized in part due to no 2‐year budgets never

being developed. It is unclear how much effort any of the program participants would like to put into

future lobbying efforts or if this idea has faded. Second, the effort needed to develop the budget and

workplan is quite large and uses a substantial amount of the TWG time and energy leaving little time to

work on planning and adaptive management. The TWG spends nearly two full meetings per year

working on the budget plus numerous BAHG meetings and the annual reports workshop in January. This

leaves only about 1‐2 meeting s per year available for non‐budget issues. The two year budget process

does not seem to adversely affect the upper basin RIP and in fact it seems to function quite well, and

they do participate in a substantial amount of budget lobbying for outside funds. A counter argument is

that the budget is the most important thing that the TWG does and we should not be reducing the

amount of time we spend on it. It is true the budget is important, but the program should try to strike a

balance between the budget and working on adaptive management.
Biennial Budget Discussion Paper June 4, 2009 Page 3

Table 1

Activity 2‐year Rolling Budget (2004) 2‐Year Budget (non‐rolling)

First year process Develop 2 year budget Develop 2 year budget

Second year process Roll year 2 to 1, develop new year 2 Minor changes to year 2, work on

other projects

Appropriations request Always have a 2 year view Every other year a 2 year view

Time/effort year 1 2 TWG meetings/year, 1 TWG

reports workshop plus parts of 2

AWMG meetings

2 TWG meetings/year, 1 TWG reports

workshop plus parts of 2 AWMG

meetings

Time/effort year 2 2 TWG meetings/year, 1 TWG

reports workshop plus parts of 2

AWMG meetings

1 part of a TWG meeting/year, 1 TWG

reports workshop plus part of 1

AWMG meeting

Annual Budget

Evaluation

Substantial time spent on the

budget and budget issues

Every other year very limited time

spent on budget. Time would be

spent on planning, adaptive

management, and planning
TWG BUDGET PROCESS TWG BUDGET PROCESS 

RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION

The TWG agreed on July 1, 2004, The TWG agreed on July 1, 2004, 

to recommend to AMWG a two to recommend to AMWG a two-year

rolling budget and rolling budget and workplan workplan

development process development process

Attachment 1

Budget/ Budget/Workplan Workplan Inputs

AMP Strategic Plan (Information Needs, AMP Strategic Plan (Information Needs, 

Management Objectives, Goals) Management Objectives, Goals)

GCMRC Strategic Plan GCMRC Strategic PlanCore Monitoring Plan Core Monitoring PlanLong-term Experimental Plan term Experimental PlanSCORE Report SCORE ReportPrevious Year’s Budget and Previous Year’s Budget and Workplan WorkplanPrevious PEP Recommendations Previous PEP Recommendations

Major Components Major Components

Two year budget and Two year budget and workplans workplans with

rollover of year 2 into year 1 rollover of year 2 into year 1

Criteria for reopening the budget Criteria for reopening the budgetAppropriations request for Federal agency Appropriations request for Federal agency 

budget or for Congressional write budget or for Congressional write-in

Strategic 5 Strategic 5-year outlook to forecast major year outlook to forecast major 

changes, determine need for changes, determine need for contingencies, and develop draft contingencies, and develop draft outyear outyear

projects projects

Fiscal Reporting Fiscal Reporting

Expenditures for the previous fiscal Expenditures for the previous fiscal 

year, including: year, including:

Salaries and Benefits Salaries and BenefitsLogistics LogisticsTravelSupplies SuppliesEquipment EquipmentAdministrative Costs (Overhead/Indirect Administrative Costs (Overhead/Indirect 

Cost)

Contracts and Coop Agreements Contracts and Coop AgreementsCarryover Funds Carryover Funds
Project Progress Reports Project Progress Reports

Mid-year and end year and end-of-year reports year reportsProgress/status of projects Progress/status of projectsAre funds obligated? Are funds obligated?Is the project in progress, has it Is the project in progress, has it 

been submitted to contracting been submitted to contracting ?

What percentage of project has been What percentage of project has been 

completed? completed?

Reports received and reviewed Reports received and reviewed

Budget Spreadsheet Budget Spreadsheet

Format as in FY 2005 Format as in FY 2005Add explanation of abbreviations for Add explanation of abbreviations for 

project categories project categories

Include AMWG briefing papers for Include AMWG briefing papers for 

projects not achieving consensus projects not achieving consensus

Include source of funds where Include source of funds where 

identified identified

.

Workplan Workplan Format

As in FY 2005 As in FY 2005New projects would have detailed NSF New projects would have detailed NSF- level proposals and level proposals and workplans workplans prior to prior to implementation implementationAdd reference to core monitoring plan or Add reference to core monitoring plan or long-term experimental plan protocols for term experimental plan protocols for design, precision and accuracy that dictate design, precision and accuracy that dictate frequency, intensity, and distribution of frequency, intensity, and distribution of sampling regimes sampling regimesAdd text to identify actual cost savings if Add text to identify actual cost savings if the project is not funded, i.e. GCMRC fixed the project is not funded, i.e. GCMRC fixed costs are not saved if project is not funded costs are not saved if project is not funded

Appropriations Request Appropriations Request

BAHG recommends formation of new BAHG recommends formation of new 

TWG/AMWG ad hoc or supplementation of TWG/AMWG ad hoc or supplementation of BAHG to investigate appropriations BAHG to investigate appropriations request process and identify format and request process and identify format and content for this request process content for this request process

Consider appropriations requests by Consider appropriations requests by 

federal agencies in the President’s budget federal agencies in the President’s budget and requests to Congress by non and requests to Congress by non-federal federal

stakeholders stakeholders
Strategic Analysis Strategic Analysis

Program review based on documents Program review based on documents 

prepared as an outcome of projects prepared as an outcome of projects implemented, including resource status implemented, including resource status and trends and trends

Identification of long Identification of long-term changes in term changes in 

program implementation, planned and program implementation, planned and unplanned unplanned

Identification of potential Identification of potential outyear outyear projects, projects,

contingency plans for uncertain events contingency plans for uncertain events

Potential Next Steps Potential Next Steps

For AMWG consideration and use at For AMWG consideration and use at 

August workshop August workshop

Foundation for FY 06 budget and Foundation for FY 06 budget and 

workplan workplan being developed through being developed through 

Core Monitoring Plan and Long Core Monitoring Plan and Long-term

Experimental Plan Experimental Plan

Need integration with outcome of Need integration with outcome of 

AMWG prioritization AMWG prioritization
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

Prior year GCMRC/BOR fiscal reports2

GCMRC/BOR report to TWG and AMWG

Prior and Present Year Updates

GCMRC/PA/TWG Updates to AMWG

Present Year +1/+2 detailed budget/workplan2

GCMRC/BOR/PA draft budgets/workplans to BAHG

GCMRC/BOR/BAHG draft budget/workplan to TWG

TWG review and recommendation to AMWG

AMWG review and recommendation to DOI

Present Year +2 appropriations budget request

GCMRC/BOR/BAHG prepare draft approps request for TWG

TWG review and recommendation to AMWG

AMWG review and recommendation to DOI

Present Year +3 to +5 strategic analysis

GCMRC/BOR/BAHG prepare draft for TWG

TWG review and recommendation to AMWG

AMWG review and recommendation to DOI

GCMRC/BOR/PA implement Present Year +1 budget

1

Year +1 and Year +2 budget/workplans developed concurrently; review of Year +2 budget when it becomes Year +1 budget limited to criteria developed by BAHG and TWG

2 Schedules assume AMWG meets in January and July; TWG meets at least quarterly as defined in their operating procedures

Fiscal Year Legend = 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AND WORKPLAN DEVELOPMENT1

2004 (Prior) 2005 (Present) 2006 (Present +1) 2007 (Present +2)
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

August 9-11, 2004, Final Meeting Minutes 

Page 10 

Introduction: Michael Gabaldon welcomed the members, alternates, and general public. Attendance 

sheets were distributed and a quorum established. 

Mike announced that items not addressed in yesterday’s agenda would be added to tomorrow’s agenda. 

He also recognized the presence of Steve Magnussen, the Secretary’s former designee for the AMP. 

Budget Development Process – Dennis Kubly said when he tried to determine how the Budget Ad Hoc 

Group was developed, it looked like the TWG initially developed the process, brought a recommendation to 

AMWG, and were directed by the AMWG to proceed. The proposal for a 2-year rolling budget by the BAHG 

was brought to the TWG at their May meeting and then revised through conference calls and brought back 

on July 1. The TWG at that time agreed to recommend the proposal to the TWG. Dennis proceeded with a 

Powerpoint presentation (Attachment 12a). Following the presentation, Dennis said the BAHG would like 

some guidance from the AMWG on how strict or liberal they would like the criteria to be. The BAHG had 

also identified seeking appropriations but the process hasn’t been worked out. He distributed copies of an 

an Excel spreadsheet (Attachment 12b) indicating the progress of tasks that would be accomplished. 

Priority Setting Workshop. Mary Orton invited the AMWG, TWG, GCMRC program managers, and PA 

signatories to sit at the table. She introduced Chuck Anders, president of Strategic Initiatives, and said he 

has 25 years experience working with complex issues in government and the private sector. He was the 

assistant director of the Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality Guide for Policy and Planning and the 

director for the Arizona Environmental Protection Agency before it was ADEQ when it was still part of the 

Health Department. In 1996, he started Strategic Initiatives which is a company that specializes in using 

interactive technology to enhance communication and he also does environmental mediation. She reminded 

the members that today’s workshop resulted from the AMWG retreat. The retreat attendees agreed there 

would be a workshop with everyone involved where priorities would be discussed and then AMWG would 

make the decision. Mary reminded the participants that the priorities AMWG ultimately sets will become part 

of the inputs to the FY06 budget process. She read the questions that had been developed for the exercise 

(Attachment 13a) and then asked Chuck to explain use of the voting machines. 

The members responded to the questions. Upon completion of the workshop, the preliminary results 

(Attachment 13b) were distributed. 

ACTION ITEM: AMWG members to let Mary know by Sept. 15 if they have other “numbered questions” to 

be added under the broad, lettered in the priority setting exercise. Send additions to mary@maryorton.com.

Continuation of Budget Development Process. Dennis Kubly said he had several questions for the 

AMWG: (1) Is that the clear direction that you’re going to give to TWG and GCMRC? (2) Is this where it 

stops? He said there were questions about where in the linkage of declining importance they would cut off 

core monitoring or research. He said he didn’t hear an answer for that question in terms of how those 

decisions are made or where the lines are drawn. He said it would help the TWG and GCMRC if the 

AMWG would give more guidance as to what they want the approach to be. 

Mary asked if it made sense for the group to go back to the budget process Dennis presented earlier and 

stated that the major addition to the FY05 process was a 2-year cycle which may or may not be able to be 

implemented at the present time. She advised the AMWG they could approve the process they eventually 

want without actually having to implement every piece of it right now. She created a flow chart to help the 

members better understand the process: 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

August 9-11, 2004, Final Meeting Minutes 

Page 11 

Comments: 

• When you have priority questions, the next step is to decide what to do with them. As an example, the 

priority questions are given to the GCMRC who develops a draft work plan. They then go back to the 

TWG or AMWG and determine if the plan reflects the right priorities. The TWG says yes or no or the 

AMWG says yes or no, and the plan is revised. As monitoring and research progresses and additional 

questions arise, then more revisions may be necessary which will affect the formulation of the next plan. 

What’s the schedule? How many meetings does the TWG or AMWG need to have? How often does 

GCMRC redraft its plan based on comments from the TWG and priorities from the AMWG? It’s that 

process that is not laid out. (Palmer) 

• Maybe we have to think about additional meetings and opportunities for AMWG to be involved in the 

development of the work plan before the final is presented. AMWG really needs to revisit and reaffirm 

every year what the priorities are for the next year’s work plan. I don’t think they just go to GCMRC and 

then GCMRC develops something and goes to the TWG. I think GCMRC and TWG sit down in a 1 or 2-

day meeting and talk about how to address those questions. The big change I see is an additional 

AMWG meeting. (Lovich) 

• Maybe you add another step rather than when TWG reviews and recommends to AMWG, that AMWG 

processes it and gives further feedback and then it comes back to the AMWG for review and final 

recommendation to the Secretary. At some point we’ve got to trust the ad hoc group. (Beckmann) 

Dennis said that once the planning documents are in place, the AMWG wouldn’t need to revisit items that 

are already fixed components in the budget (core monitoring). With the completion of the Long Term 

Experimental Plan, 95% of the budget would already be complete. With the new budget process, the time 

preparing a work plan and budget will greatly diminish. 

Clayton reaffirmed that the core monitoring piece of the budget is on a 2-year cycle but the research piece 

is on a 1-year cycle. As such, he feels the AMWG should revisit the research and experimental portion of 

the budget each year. Dennis said there isn’t that kind of flexibility in the plan. Clayton said he believed an 

experiment needed to last long enough to pass through several hydrologic conditions. Without the 

AMWG sets 

priorities, 

annually, 

before June 

GCMRC and TWG 

put together draft 

budget and 

workplan, including 

INs needed to 

address priorities 

AMWG reviews 

and gives 

feedback on the 

draft budget and 

workplan 

GCMRC and TWG 

finish draft budget 

and workplan 

AMWG approves 

budget and 

workplan as a 

recommendation to 

the Secretary 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

August 9-11, 2004, Final Meeting Minutes 

Page 12 

opportunity to hear what has taken place over the course of the year and be able to react, then he feels they 

are not doing adaptive management. 

Jeff Lovich said that GCMRC would be willing to make changes insofar as they don’t have to reduce the 

resolution of their long-term datasets. If they could increase the accuracy or increase the precision as long 

as they can maintain the continuous dataset that was comparable to day one, they would do it with 

whatever flexibility was available to them. They need to be receptive to new advances in technology and be 

able to adjust but they can’t make a lot of compromises. 

Clayton said he would like the process laid out and then the details could be assigned to the TWG. He 

would prefer a core monitoring program that was longer in term and didn’t have to be revisited every year. 

However, he wants to see the core monitoring program reviewed every two years but that if changes need 

to be made, they can bet. 

Denny Fenn said that some of the core monitoring programs could be done annually while some may be 

done every five years. He thinks the AMP needs to find a balance between program management and 

executive leadership. 

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? 

GCMRC Strategic Plan. Jeff Lovich said that GCMRC is still working through the process of developing 

their internal strategic plan. As he mentioned last fall to the AMWG, he feels strongly that GMCRC needs to 

have a vision for where it is going programmatically. He distributed copies of the Draft GCMRC Strategic 

Plan (Attachment 14a) along with the Science Advisors’ review of general GCD AMP planning documents 

(Attachment 14b), and gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 14c). He requested that comments 

on the plan be sent to him by Sept. 15 so he could incorporate and present a final plan at the next AMWG 

meeting (Oct. 25-26, 2004). 

Comments: 

• It’s a good document. I know it doesn’t cover the science issue that the science advisors have but it 

does start to lay a foundation where we have a better understanding of how you’re operating your 

employees. I see it as being a good directional document and is a good cornerstone for better 

interaction in the future. I commend you on getting this thing done. (Taubert) 

• Just a quick point about the mission and vision. There is some pretty good language about using other 

management actions interpreting the GCPA in that way, non-native fish control and other things that 

we’ve done already, shoring up historic property sites, cultural sites, things that we might do in addition 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

August 9-11, 2004, Final Meeting Minutes 

Page 19 

Bruce admonished that there needs to be a plan or they won’t be able to get the permits. If GCMRC can’t 

bring a plan, and can’t change the dollars, then they need to line out what they’re going to do. 

MOTION: That GCMRC and TWG make a recommendation to AMWG in October 2004 on warm water 

species studies, including a plan with dates starting in January 2005. 

Passed by consensus. 

MOTION: That TWG and GCMRC develop a draft biennial FY06-07 budget and workplan, consistent 

with the chub, flows, TCD, sediment, and cultural priorities (as established at the priority-setting 

workshop) and other appropriate inputs, for the January 2005 AMWG meeting, for review, feedback, 

and possible action. 

Motion passed by consensus. 

Tribal Consultation Plan. Loretta Jackson distributed copies of the Draft Tribal Consultation Plan 

(Attachment 18) and said that this plan will be included in the AMP Strategic Plan. She said the plan needs 

to be reviewed by the Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group along with the tribes and federal agencies. She would 

like to see this document incorporated into the AMP Strategic Plan. She said there are also some new 

parties to Programmatic Agreement and they would also need to review the plan. 

The following steps need to occur: 

1. The Federal agencies will meet and discuss the plan. They will provide their comments to Loretta 

Jackson and Dean Saugee (attorney for the Hualapai Tribe). 

2. The plan will be revised and forwarded to the entire AMWG for comments. 

3. The tribes will meet and hopefully agree on the document. 

4. The tribal council will probably pass a resolution on the plan’s acceptance. 

5. The plan is incorporated into the AMP Strategic Plan. 

ACTION ITEM: Loretta will send the current draft of the Tribal Consultation Plan and Addendums A&B to 

Linda who will distribute to the AMWG. (Posted to the AMP web site: 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envprog/amp/amwg/mtgs/04aug09/Attach_18.pdf) 

ACTION ITEM: Comments on the Draft of the Tribal Consultation Plan are to be sent to Dean Saugee, 

dsuagee@hsdwdc.com by August 26, 2004. 

Motion: Recommend to the Secretary that, upon passage of the DOI Appropriations Act, the 

Secretary retain and transfer $380,000 to Reclamation, who will include an additional $95,000 for 

immediate distribution to the Tribes to fund Tribal Activities associated with the AMP. This transfer 

will reflect a contribution of $95,000 from each DOI agency. BIA, NPS, USGS, FWS, and Reclamation, 

based on the Secretary’s commitment. 

Passed by consensus. 

SA Operating Protocols – Dave Garrett said a memo (Attachment 19a) was sent to the AMWG regarding 

a proposal the science advisors want to make to their operating protocol. The science advisors aren’t 

proposing any changes to the budget. The change just indicates how the science advisors receive their 

charge. He proceeded with a PPT presentation (Attachment 19b). . 

MOTION: Adopt the amendment to the Science Advisors’ Operating Protocol as presented. 

Passed by consensus. 
Appendix H 

TWG AD HOC GROUP ON BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

REPORT TO TWG 

Approved by AMWG on April 13, 2001 

At its September 20, 1999, meeting, after some discussion of AMP budget issues and 

processes, the TWG voted to form a TWG ad hoc group to “review the budget process 

and bring recommendations back to the TWG”. Members appointed to the group were: 

Cliff Barrett, chairman, Clayton Palmer, Randy Peterson, Wayne Cook, Robert Begay, 

Bill Persons, and Norm Henderson. During the TWG discussion of the budget issues the 

following comments or suggestions were made and captured on a flip chart: 

1. Develop a more effective consensus building process for budget review and approval 

2. Develop a better forum for discussion of minority views 

3. Start budget discussions earlier in the budget process 

4. Develop a prioritization method 

5. Organize a “lobbying” effort in Washington, D.C., to support the budget once it is 

approved. 

6. Develop a process for frequent updates of the TWG and AMWG on the budget as it 

moves through the Administration and the Congress. 

The ad hoc group used these six items as the starting point for discussion and the 

framework for this report. This report contains the ad hoc group’s recommendations to 

the TWG for actions that will help in the AMP budget process. 

BASIC ASSUMPTION 

All of the following discussion and recommendations are based on the assumption that 

the AMWG wants the TWG to be deeply involved in the AMP budget process and wants 

to receive TWG’s recommendations on the budget and budgeting issues. This assumption 

should be confirmed. 

RECOMMENDATION

• The ad hoc group recommends that the TWG ask AMWG for guidance on the 

degree of involvement AMWG wants in the AMP budget process and how much 

help it wants from the TWG in meeting that goal. 

ITEMS 1-3 

The first three items relate to having more timely and effective discussions. Effective 

discussions, during which all views on a topic are heard, discussed, and understood by 

interested and involved TWG participants has been a goal of the TWG for some time. 

TWG has a game plan and meeting rules that will provide for this. What is needed more 

than anything else is for the TWG agenda to be prepared in a way that allows enough 

Appendix H−1 
time for thorough budget discussions at a place in the meeting where the participants 

have the time and are of the mindset to apply themselves to the problem, i.e., not at the 

end of the meeting nor the end of the day. Let’s give the budget some “quality time.” 

TWG consideration of the budget would be facilitated if a small group were to work with 

the USBR and GCMRC throughout the entire budget process, from initial formulation to 

formal budget presentations and on into the execution phase. TWG needs a small 

permanent group of members that have the time and inclination to work together on 

detailed budget problems. This group could then work with USBR and GCMRC in the 

budget process, do required liaison with TWG members, and help USBR and GCMRC 

bring to the TWG budgets that have had some review, had major items discussed, and are 

prepared for full TWG discussion and recommendation. To provide continuity from year 

to year this should be a permanent work group of the TWG. 

A major concern with this and other proposals in this report is the potential violation of 

the GCMRC RFP protocols which are intended to prevent the conflict of interest that 

occurs when potential bidders on RFPs are involved in detailed discussions of work 

plans, budgets, and RFP issues. As there are several potential bidders on the AMWG and 

TWG, the budget review process must be done in a way that ensures there is not the 

perception or reality of potential bidders obtaining insider information. An extreme way 

to accomplish this is for all potential bidders to exclude themselves from any work plan, 

budget, or RFP discussions. This may result in a dysfunctional AMWG and TWG when it 

comes to these issues. The other extreme is for AMWG and TWG to be only superficially 

involved in the budgeting process at a level that may even preclude the ability to make 

informed recommendations to the Secretary on budget issues. The TWG Budget Group 

and the Director of the GCMRC, and perhaps the USGS Contracting Officer need to have 

a full discussion of this problem before the proposed AMP budget process is 

implemented. 

The timing of TWG and AMWG budget considerations within the budget process has 

been a problem and has been discussed at the most recent meetings of both TWG and 

AMWG. The ad hoc group has reviewed the GCDAMP Budget Protocols and Federal 

Budget Process document adopted in 1998 and prepared a draft revision that attempts to 

provide for the current budget situation that includes both USBR and USGS funds as well 

as those from other agencies. A draft is attached to this report. This document should be 

finalized by the TWG Budget Work Group, reviewed by TWG, and presented to AMWG 

for adoption in July 2001. 

Success will also depend on obtaining from GCMRC, USGS, and USBR budget 

documents that give the information needed for a comprehensive review, and are 

internally consistent in format. The AMWG has developed a trial format and GCMRC 

has been presenting its budget in this format as of FY2001. It is “a work in progress” and 

some patience will be required by all parties as AMWG and GCMRC work toward the 

“ideal.” Completion of this effort could be assigned to the AMP Budget Working Group. 

Appendix H-2 
RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding Items 1-3, the ad hoc group recommends the following: 

• The TWG form a permanent AMP Budget Work Group 

• The TWG assign the Budget Work Group the task of reviewing and finalizing the 

attached draft GCDAMP Budget Protocol and Process and bringing it to the TWG 

for recommendation to the AMWG in July 2001. The Work Group will assure 

that the process allows ample time for internal Tribal discussions to take place 

before key meetings of TWG and AMWG on budget matters. 

• The TWG recommend to the AMWG that it assigns the AMP Budget Work 

Group the task of completing the work on standard budget formats. 

• The chairman of the TWG assure that TWG agenda gives appropriate time for full 

discussion of the budget, and that budget documents are furnished to TWG 

members sufficiently in advance to allow for their review prior to the meeting. 

• The TWG should discuss the way budget discussions are conducted and 

determine if there is a need for training the TWG in meeting process, conflict 

resolution, and other items that will increase the ability of the TWG to work 

together as a team. The TWG should then make appropriate recommendations to 

the AMWG and the involved Federal agencies to obtain the help needed. 

Adoption of this recommendation will help the TWG in all of its work, not just 

the budget. 

ITEM 4: Develop a Prioritization Method 

All parties (AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, USBR, USGS) must 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 has some fixed resources (power revenues) and some that depend on further 

Congressional action (appropriated funds) and some that are outside the federal system 

(non-federal funding). A system must be devised that gives the TWG /AMWG a clear 

idea as to how available funds will be allocated if all the anticipated funding is not 

obtained. TWG/AMWG must have this information throughout the budget process so that 

guidance can be given to GCMRC/USBR/USGS as they go through their internal 

processes even before the budget goes to the Congress. There are many opportunities for 

budget adjustments in this process, and TWG/AMWG need to be involved if they are 

then to be expected to support the final budget as it goes to the Congress. 

The Strategic Plan, the Goals and Management Objectives, and especially the prioritized 

Information Needs should serve as the base for determining budget priorities. At its basic 

level the budget should put the baseline monitoring and high priority information needs 

ahead of other activities. This will necessarily be modified year to year by hydrology and 

Appendix H−3 
other scientific considerations. An appropriate priority will also have to be given to PA 

activities included in the AMP. 

RECOMMENDATION

• The ad hoc group recommends that GCMRC and USBR be requested to identify a 

prioritization process that they will use in the event of budget reductions anytime 

in the budget process. This process may include a list of items that could be 

reduced if required, in some order of priority. This list would then be considered 

by TWG/AMWG in their budget recommendation process. 

ITEM 5. Organize a Lobbying Effort to Support the Budget 

This breaks into two levels. The first is in the budget formulation phase while the 

agencies, the department and OMB are developing the budget that will be sent to the 

Congress. During this phase the members of TWG and AMWG need to work with the 

Secretary’s representative to the AMWG and the Federal members of TWG/AMWG to 

assure that sufficient funding is proposed. This is best done during the process described 

above where the budget is reviewed, discussed and prioritized. The federal members and 

the Secretary’s representative should get a good idea as to the TWG/AMWG support for 

the budget from these discussions, and can carry that message to the involved offices in 

the Department. 

The second level is at the Congress. The ad hoc group views this as a task for the nonFederal members of the AMWG. The AMWG could form a group to develop a concrete 

game plan for this effort. The plan would include: a) identification of key Congressmen 

and staff members who either deal directly with the budget, or who are interested and can 

exert influence; b) organize a letter writing effort; c) organize visits in Washington with 

members and staff. 

RECOMMENDATION

• The ad hoc group recommends that the TWG recommend to the AMWG the 

formation of a group of non-Federal AMWG members to devise and carry out a 

plan to gain support for the AMP program and required budget from the involved 

members of Congress and the Congressional Committees. 

ITEM 6. Frequent Budget Updates for the TWG and AMWG 

There is a need for all members of the TWG and AMWG to be fully informed on budget 

issues as the budget is prepared and moves through the Federal approval and 

appropriation process. This will be a natural result of the recommendations made above. 

The AMP Budget Work Group, the GCMRC and USBR will report to the TWG 

frequently as the budget is formulated, executed, and adjusted. More complete and 

timely communication and reporting of TWG members with their AMWG member will 

be required to aid the AMWG in understanding, accepting, and recommending the budget 

Appendix H−4 
to the Secretary. Further updates to the AMWG will be necessary as it organizes the 

support needed to carry the budget through the Administration and the Congress, and in 

applying the priorities. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The ad hoc group recommends that a brief budget update by GCMRC and USBR 

be included on the agenda for every TWG meeting. In addition TWG members 

should be responsible for keeping their AMWG members fully informed on 

budget issues. 

• AMP budget status and issues should be on the agenda for every January and July 

AMWG meeting, with time allocated for a full discussion. Brief status reports 

should be given at other AMWG meetings as needed. 

GENERAL 

In addition to the above recommendations the ad hoc group, having completed its work, 

and assuming its recommendation to form a permanent AMP Budget Committee is 

adopted, further recommends that this ad group on budget process be discontinued. 

Appendix H−5 
ACTION ONDJ F MA MJ J A S ONDJ F MA MJ J A S ONDJ F MA MJ J A S 

Annual budget/workplan specific

GCMRC annual reports to TWG (AMWG), review progress, identify new startsTWG review of reports, progress SSQs

Biennial budget specific

GCMRC draft initial biennial budget to BAHG new starts identified (big picture discussions, emphasis correct?)TWG review/recommendation of draft initial budget: receive BAHG report (technical issues)AMWG review of draft initial budget/workplan: receive TWG reportGCMRC detailed budget/workplan to B/CRAHG for reviewTWG review/recommendation of final detailed budget/workplan: final BAHG reportAMWG budget/workplan approval: final TWG report

Second-year budget specific

TWG review of GCMRC reportsGCMRC updates of second year budget/workplan to BAHG, carry-overs, new starts identifiedTWG review/recommendation of second year budget/workplan: BAHG reportAMWG second year budget/workplan approval: final TWG report

TWG or TWG ad hoc meetings/eventsAMWG meetings/events

TWG/AMWG Biennial Budget and Workplan Development Approach for 2010/11

Draft: October 9

2009 2010 2011 

PLAN 2010-11 budget UPDATE 2B 2011 PLAN 2012-13 budget