WSP06393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00473 TWG Budget Ad hoc Group GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimenta' Budget and Work Plan Development Question/Response Table . . 34 (WAPA) GCMRC's Rcsponsc to Comment #34 3S (BAHG) . I3 rates and amounts of erosion occurring under different dam operating scenarios, One part of the proposed approach will entail repeat systematic mapping of a random sample of sites within the river corridor, Mapping will measure changes in gully lengths, widths and depths as well as volumetric change (changes in surface topography relative to an established baseline map.) We already know that archaeological sites occur in a wide variety of topographic and sedimentological settings, therefore we need to start with an adequately sized sample of sites to ensure that the variability in erosion rates will be adequately represented, We are starting with a sample of 40 sites, which represents about 12,5% of the approximately 31S NR eligible sites within the previously defined Area of Potential Effect, After we have collected data for a few years, we may be able to adjust and refine the sample 'size based on the variability encountered, We are also proposing to continue collecting some of the same legacy data that the NPS feels is essential to meet their internal needs for Section 110 compliance, but we will be refocusing the data collection strategy so that the data are no longer skewed towards the most heavily visited and most threatened sites, and we will be refining the data fields so that the data are not redundant or artificially weighted and so the data leads logically to an objective condition rating that will be suitable for assessing trends in resource condition over time. The budget is based on the amount of field work and data processing necessary to achieve this end result. [Need to revise the GCMRC salaries shown in the budget for lines #123-125, as they are likely actually services costs that should be added into the totals shown in column "f," Again, another opportunity to explore the proposed approach within the context of the May IS'h KA workshop, with presentation by GCMRC on status of knowledge, etc, Subject to future discussions with BAHGers, The pros and cons discussion should be immcdiately followed by the BAHG recommendations about how to proceed.] Socio-cultural Program Cl, line 123, Should be RES not CM. Costs are too high since tbe monitoring effort is expected to be reduced. See previous response, The monitoring effort for cultural resources is not expectcd to be reduced until after the treatment plan for Grand Canyon has been developed and implementcd; this is not likely to occur until sometime after FY06, [Need to revise the GCMRC salaries shown in the budget for lines #123-125, as they are likely actually serviccs costs that should be added into the totals shown in column "f," Also, the designation for the project should be revised to reflect the R&D phase of the work toward identifying the CM methods for use in the future CMP,] Line 124 (Integrated Tribal Values Monitoring}--Is tbe GCDAMP structured to monitor tribal values or resources of importance to tbe tribes? Is this funding intended to be an entitlement for the tribes or will it be administered througb a competitive process by GCMRC? How was the amount offunding determined wben, as we evidenced at tbe last TWG meeting, tbe tribes are not in agreement on tbe objectives for tbis monitoring or the methods that would be employed? If tbe tribes are not in agreement, how is tbis monitoring considered to be integrated? Based on the description in the workplan, it appears tbat TCPs Deed to be identified before tbere can be 8ereement on wbat resources need to Document Reference: fY06 Master Draft AMP Budget- BOR GCMRC 02117/05 11,05 AM