Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l <br /> <br />delineation, it may be difficult to differentiate among the various mechanisms that may <br />be degrading the cultural resource sites in Glen and Grand Canyons2 <br /> <br />If the allocation of treatment costs were solely among Interior agencies, one could argue <br />that dividing the cost of mitigating adverse effects was merely an internal funding issue <br />within Interior. However, since the majority of AMP funding comes from public power <br />customers, cost allocation between dam effects and other contributing mechanisms is still <br />an important issue to resolve. We believe the following proposed process has merit in <br />this regard: <br /> <br />I - The entire suite of sites in Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and tribal lands within the <br />Colorado River Ecosystem that may be adversely affected by both Reclamation and <br />National Park Service actions will be considered in the development of a treatment plan <br />for each of these National Park Service units in accordance with NHP A Section 106. <br />Preparation of each of these treatment plans would be financed through a combination of <br />AMP funds, in-kind services ofPA signatories, and National Park Service funds and in- <br />kind services. <br /> <br />2 - The Research Design documene, the Monitoring and Remedial Action Plan, as well <br />as other documents, such as monitoring reports and data syntheses, would be used in P A <br />discussions to inform and design mitigation treatments in accordance with NHP A Section <br />106. Particular and appropriate consideration should be given to (a) National Park <br />Service policy regarding the preservation of cultural resources for the enjoyment of future <br />generations, and (b) the loss of integrity of existing properties which may limit their <br />eligibility to the National Register and their value in answering specific research design <br />questions or their associative values. While funding of the treatment plan would be <br />reviewed and recommended by the TWG and approved by the AMWG, an agreement <br />among the P A signatories on the treatment plan will constitute appropriate compliance <br />under NHP A by the action agencies. <br /> <br />3 - The best available scientific information will be used by the P A signatories to <br />establish the 97,000 cfs stage and to develop location maps, particularly of those <br />degrading sites deemed most critical, in relation to that stage. Reclamation and the <br />National Park Service agree to share information about site boundaries, computer models <br />of river stage, and remotely sensed and ground-based topographic surveys with other P A <br />signatories to accomplish these tasks. <br /> <br />4 - The treatment plans will be implemented using AMP power revenues, appropriations, <br />and other funds, The treatment plans will recommend the priority for treatments. All <br />actions will be undertaken in accordance with established standards of the Secretary of <br />the Interior and guidance by the Advisory Council. Implementation of treatments <br />financed by AMP power revenues initially wiIl be limited to sites at or below the 97,000 <br /> <br />2 This agrees with the report of the Cultural PEP (April 26. 2002), wherein they stated "Trying to pursue <br />the quantification of those dam-related effects as distinguished from "natural" erosional effects is not <br />deemed a cost-effective research endeavor." <br />3 The Research Design, which is based on research and data recovery, is currently in final stages of <br />preparation, <br /> <br />02344 <br /> <br />03/02/2004 235 PM <br />