Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: Even in the earlier draft <br />workplan of February 2005, this project was limited in its scope to measurements made only <br />between the forebay of the dam and river mile 87 (Grand Canyon gage near Phantom Ranch). <br />Under the "With Experiment" scenario, there are reductions in several parts of the the budget <br />that are required to support both: I) the experimental treatments and Humpback chub actions and <br />2) the proposed carry-forward fund to support experimental work in FY 2007 and beyond. <br />Under the "With Experiment" scenario, these reductions will force the GCMRC staff to <br />undertake more of the field efforts required to obtain water quality samples and data in support <br />of the suspended-sediment mass balance work to keep the project viable (meaning more need to <br />coordinate and oversight student contractors, employees, administrative support, etc.): In the <br />"Without Experiment" scenario, the project is basically restored to the funding levels under the <br />original budget (shown in the February 2005 draft version) and most of this field effort would be <br />undertaken by the Water Resources Discipline of the USGS (Arizona District personnel), albeit <br />at a higher cost. More involvement by GCMRC staff in the "With Experiment" version of the <br />work plan means that these scientists and technicians have less time to contribute to planning <br />activities, as well as analyses and reporting. Reduction in the number of river-support trips for <br />sampling and maintenance of the monitoring sites (from 6/yr down to 2/}T) will Jikely have the <br />effect of increasing the measurement uncertainty associated with the reporting of fine-sediment <br />inputs versus export. <br /> <br />GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10. 2005) <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />27 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,e <br />I <br />, <br /> <br />. <br />