Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Agenda Item Information 

September 30, 2009

Agenda Item

Biennial Budget Process Development 

Action Requested

9 Consider how to move forward with the development of a biennial budget process – 

use BAHG or other group? 

Presenters

Shane Capron, TWG Chair 

Previous Action Taken

9 By AMWG (August 2009): AMWG directs TWG to develop a two-year, FY11-12 twoyear, 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. The next AMWG meeting is scheduled for 

February 3-4, 2010. 

Background Information

In 2009, TWG developed a discussion paper on the potential use of a two-year nonrolling budget vs. a two-year rolling budget. This was forwarded to AMWG at the June 

2009 TWG meeting. AMWG considered the FY 2010-11 budget and the discussion 

paper and passed a motion to instruct TWG to a) develop a non-rolling budget for FY 

2011-12, and b) develop a draft description of this budget process for AMWG at their 

February 3-4, 2010, meeting. 

The following document was developed based on that discussion paper and the outline 

that was found in the most recent budget description from the AMP Strategic Plan, 

which included a document from 2001 describing the budget issues. This is meant as a 

starting template to begin consideration of the budget description. This provides only a 

rough outline in an attempt to capture the major topics which need to be discussed. 

TWG should consider how best to move forward, to assign a new ad hoc or utilize the 

BAHG in the development of this budget description. 

 Page 1 
Biennial Budget Process Development 

BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS 

Draft outline for TWG Review 

At its August 12-13, 2009 meeting, the AMWG directed TWG to develop a 2-year nonrolling budget beginning in 2011-12. This document describes the biennial (2-year) nonrolling budget approach and some of the history that led up to its development. The 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, nonrolling budget; and that a description of that process be provided by TWG to 

AMWG at its next meeting. 

Motion was passed by consensus 

Background 

The previous budget process was approved by AMWG in 2004 and helped to bring 

some needed structure to the budget process. Within that structure, the primary element 

was a biennial budget and work plan 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 work 

plan. 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. 

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

 Two year budget and work plans 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 and work plan

 Formation of the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG)

Since adoption of the new process in 2004, the AMP 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 AMP developed the 

first biennial budget for FY 2010-11. During this process it became clear that this 

process would not reduce effort spent on the budget and may have actually increased 

the amount of effort needed by the program. Thus, an alternative to the rolling budget 

(i.e., non-rolling biennial budget) was described in general terms to AMWG and adopted 

by the AMWG for the FY 2011-12 budget cycle (see AMWG motion above). 

Description of a Two-year Non-rolling Budget Process 

The general approach is to use a process similar to that taken by the upper basin RIP 

with the goal of reducing the effort expended on the annual budget process while 

improving the effectiveness of TWG, GCMRC, and AMWG. TWG would develop a two-

 Page 2 
Biennial Budget Process Development 

year budget the first year of the process. Then, in the second year the AMP would 

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 one. The 

key benefit to this process is that substantial 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 AMP. 

The major components of the 2009 two-year budget process would include: 

 Two-year budgets and work plans, 

 Modifications of the year-two budget based on specific criteria, 

 Fiscal reporting, including expenditures for the previous fiscal year (mid-year and 

end end-of-year reports), 

 Project progress reports, including an annual reporting meeting in January 

 Budget spreadsheet and work plan, and 

 Utilization of a Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) of the TWG 

 Strategic outlook? (5 years) 

Much of the rest of the process would be as described in 2004, reporting requirements, 

budget spreadsheets and a work plan would all be developed. TWG and GCMRC would 

also still hold the annual reports meeting workshop in January to review progress on the 

previous year’s work plan. The following describes the specific elements of the budget 

process and describes responsibilities. 

Budget Principles

Budget based on the following: 

• AMP Strategic Plan, updated AMWG priority questions and SSQs 

• GCMRC MRP and SSP, outside input (e.g., PEP reviews) 

• Input from BAHG/TWG/AMWG 

Timeline

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

been a problem and has been discussed. We need to describe a timeline with roles 

Budget process components 

Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG)

TWG consideration of the budget has been facilitated by a small ad hoc group which 

has worked with the USBR and GCMRC throughout the entire budget process. TWG 

should utilize this sub-group to work through issues from the initial formulation to formal 

budget presentations and on through the execution phases. This group should 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 comprehensive 

review where the major issues have been discussed, and are prepared for full TWG 

discussion and recommendation. 

 Page 3 
Biennial Budget Process Development 

 Page 4 

Other issues/notes: 1) timeline has been challenging, 2) has the BAHG had the 

appropriate focus, detail vs. priorities?, can we describe that focus better here?, 3) 

describe responsibilities, 

Priorities

All parties (AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, USBR, USGS) 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 may 

include core monitoring and management actions. A system must be devised that gives 

the TWG /AMWG a clear idea as to how available funds will be allocated if there are 

more projects than funding available. 

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 other scientific considerations. 

Other issues/notes: 1) how will core monitoring fit in, 

Mid-year and end of year fiscal reporting, including carry over

January reporting meeting

Budget spreadsheet and work plan

Criteria for year-two review and revisions

TWG Chair

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. 

Roles

AMWG’s role – priority list, update SSQs, 

BOR role 

GCMRC role 

TWG role 

Management actions: what role will they, if any, in the budget process?