Laserfiche WebLink
FY11-12 Budget and Budget Proce <br />April 27, F <br />NOTE: Text in _5t; ij i }L g i r from the bud <br />getATE Text in black font is from stakeholders. <br />TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />Introduction...................................................................................................................... ............................... <br />Commentson New Budget Process .............................................................................. ............................... <br />Priorities and Comments on TWG Issues of Concern ............................; ................. ............................... <br />Priorities and Comments among Deferred and Unfunded Items ............................. ............................... <br />Additional Priorities for Discussion on the FYI 1 -12 Budget .................................... ............................... <br />Comments on AMWG Priorities Established in 2004 ............................................... ............................... <br />INTRODUCTION <br />In advance of the AMWG webinar scheduled for May 6, 2010, AMWG members were asked to identify <br />four items: (1) priorities among the 17 issues of concern that TWG had identified, (2) any proposed <br />changes to the budget process, (3) other budget items they wanted to discuss, and (4) any motions they <br />were proposing. Ten AMWG members responded. This document is a compilation of the responses <br />received. <br />01v m N' s GN NFw rDGE'1:" PROCESS <br />Jennifer Gimbel, State of Colorado: TWG provided a new budget cycle document for <br />discussion. There is a section entitled "hydrograph development" (section 3.7, page 4) that <br />Colorado would like discussed on the AMWG call. Colorado would like this entire section <br />deleted, as it does not belong in a budget cycle description document. At the very least Colorado <br />would like the last three sentences of this section to be deleted. <br />Nikolai Lash, GCT: Regarding Item 2c [proposed changes to the budgetprocessJ, we recognize the merits of <br />having a two -year budget cycle, but are concerned about reducing the flexibility needed to <br />implement Adaptive Management. Planning ahead is necessary and good, but I think it would be <br />useful to explicitly recognize the potential to adjust priorities based on resources responses. <br />Steve Martin, NPS: Proposed changes to the budget process: <br />• The budget spreadsheet and work plan should include all activities within or associated with the <br />AMP. <br />• Hydrograph development section is inaccurate and needs to be rewritten. <br />• TWG members should be able to bring priority changes to the table for the second year. <br />• Tribal consultation commitment should be described and folded into the budget process <br />1 <br />1 <br />2 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />Page 1 <br />