WSP06393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00467 . General I (Norm Henderson) GCMRC's Response to General Comment #1 . General 2 (Norm Henderson) GCMRC's Response to General Comment #2 . TWG Budget Ad hoc Group GCMRC FY06 Budget and Work Plan Development QuestionlResponse Table General Comments (and GCMRC's Draft Responses, 04f27(05) As specified by the AMWG, two '06 budgets must be prepared. One with experimental actions and one without experimental actions. In response to the AMWG motion and request from the BAHG, two versions of the FY 2006, budget tables were prepared by the GCMRC staff, These versions assumed that a 001 burden rate of 15% would need to be applied to the science funds, unless a special pass-through rate is approved for FY 2006. The Non-Experimental version reflects a strategic effort to reprogram the $791,000 (gross total with burden), originally proposed in the GCMRC's 2002 Experimental Plan design as the fourth year of mechanical removal, into other non-experimental efforts, as per the recommendations of the Budget ad-hoc group, On thc basis of discussions with the BAHG chairperson, it appears that the main recommendation for reprogranuning these funds is to have them carried forward into the FY 2007-08, period for use in supporting experimental treatments implemented once the Experimental Plan is completed and approved, The Experimental version of the plan includcs experimental elements (both flow and non-flow) that are recommended by the GCMRC staff and its cooperators on the basis of: I) science knowledge gained since the experimental treatments began in 2003,2) the strategic design of the GCMRC's original experimental plan (2002), 3) existing environmental compliance, 4) agreed upon "conservation measures" associated with the experimental compliance, and 5) the fiscal reality of the projected budget for FY 2006, The GCMRC's 2006 Draft Workplan and Budget must be viewed as a provisional budget given tbat a great deal of planning is underway to establish program priorities in both research and monitoring. Given this, there should be a caveat included at the front of the workplan and budget that states that program elements included may be modified based on the outcome of this planning effort (sometime before FY-2006). If we can't make changes in '06 based on this planning analysis, it calls into question tbe rationale for going forward with our planning effort.) Owing to the fact that the FY 2006, draft work plan and budget will not be approved until nearly the end of the FY 2005 fiscal year, there is little time prior to FY 2006 to make changes prior to implementation in October 2005, Therefore, GCMRC believes that any changes that are required in the draft plan should be clearly identified by the TWG at its June 2005 meeting, well before approval ofthe work plan and budget by the AMWG in August 2005, The projects that are recommended by the TWG to the AMWG and forwarded onto 001 as recommended actions for Document Reference: FY06 Masler Drall AMP Budgel- BOR GCMRC 02117/05 1 t :05 AM