Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TWG Budget Ad hoc Group <br />GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development <br />QuestionlResponse Table <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />Response to that reviewed sampling methods and population estimate models used in Grand <br />Comment Canyon and the upper basin. The remaining funds were intended to be carried <br />#30 forward into FYOS, but were used to cover costs associated with overhead costs <br /> charged by USGS, Funds in FYOS are being used for simulation modeling as <br /> directed by the Secretary's designee, They are also being used to ensure that other <br /> HBC projects are completed, or initiated like the disease and parasite work, fall <br /> seining trip, and translocation associated with the biological opinion conservation <br /> measures. The disease and parasite work was to be fully funded in FYOS with carry <br /> forward from FY04, These funds were not available for carry forward in FYOS in <br /> association with overhead costs, The translocation work associated with the <br /> biological opinion was not budgeted for beyond monitoring work, In FY05 it is <br /> planned that an additional translocation take place in July, The fall seining trip, <br /> though part of the downstream fish monitoring program requires additional funding <br /> to complete which the downstream fish budget does not currently have, <br />31 Line 106 (Concurrent population estimates) - The workplan (page 86) suggests <br />(Norm that no funds were expended in '04 or '05 and does not discuss or suggest any <br />past efforts yet the budget identifies specific amounts ($250,000 and $200,000 <br />Henderson) respectively). Please clarify how the past dollars were spent or if unspent why <br /> they would not be available for '06 uses. <br /> See responses to comments above. [BAHG identified that the placeholder for this <br /> HCA activity for FY 2006, should be reprogrammed to support other science <br />GCMRC's activities, owing to the perceived inability of the science to be implemented <br />Response to immediately following results of final report in December 2005, issues of conducting <br />Comment these estimates in the same time frame as 4th year MR, and need for additional time <br />#31 to fully assess handling issues related to gear types to be used, etc, The projects that <br /> would be funded using these funds, TBD through ongoing discussions with GCMRC <br /> and BAHG,] <br />32 HCA <br />(WAPA) 85, line 106, kept this line item in, the 05 simulation wiD tell us what to do in 06. <br />GCMRC's No response needed, [See above] <br />Response to <br />Comment <br />#32 <br />33 Line 123 (Integrated Archaeological Monitoring)--The budget for this work has <br />(8AHG) increased from $235,000 to $391,000, but the methods and protocols are not yet <br />developed. What justifies this increase in fundine? <br /> Over the years, the amount of money directed at cultural resources monitoring has <br /> been cut back repeatedly, to the point that the NPS River Corridor Monitoring <br />GCMRC's Program is now receiving about half of what they received when they began the <br />Response to monitoring efforts, While cut backs may be justifiable in some respects, the current <br />Comment funding is not adequate to provide credible, unbiased, information related to status <br />#33 and trends in archaeological site condition over time, As explained in the FY06 <br />work plan project description, GCMRC is proposing to follow through with one of <br /> the 2000 PEP recommendations by refocusing monitoring of cultural resources so as <br /> to better meet the needs of the AMP for Quantifiable, replicable information about <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Document Reference: fY06 Masler Draft AMP Budget - BOR GCMRC 02lt7/05 11:05 AM <br />