WSP06393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

14 TWG Budget Ad hoc Group GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development QuestionfResponse Table GCMRC's Response to Comment #35 36 (Norm Henderson) GCMRC's Response to Comment #36 be monitored. Will tbis be done in advance of FY 06 fundin bein allocated? Currently, five stakeholders in the AMP (not including the Tribes) receive money from the science program to monitor or conduct research related to resources of that are of particular concern to their agencies or interests: AZGF, FWS, NPS (both GRCA and GLCA), BOR, and GCRG. Whether or not this constitutes entitlements has never been addressed by the program but probably should be, It is unrealistic to suggest that other entities should evaluate the resources that the tribes themselves value for their cultural significance; however, GCMRC intends to hold the tribes to same standards of accountability as other stakeholders who receive non-competitive funding through this program. The six tribes that participate in the AMP come from different backgrounds, speak different languages, have different traditions and different traditional lifestyles, histories, and values, so there has never been an intention or expectation that all tribes should monitor the same resources in the same fashion, The fact that they do not have a single unified approach is therefore a non- issue, The integration relates to the fact that the tribes are monitoring multiple resources (arch sites, plants, mineral sources, etc,) for multiple purposes (Section 106, GCPA, developing their internal science capacity, reaffirming their traditional relationships with the canyon, etc,) in an integrated fashion, rather than as three or four separate programs that require separate funding, separate river trips, etc, TCPs need to be identified to meet the requirements for Section 106 compliance under the P A, but NR eligible TCPs are not the only resources of concern to the tribes. The evaluation ofTCPs will be done according to whatever timeframes the BOR decides are appropriate to this endeavor, since BOR is the lead agency for 106 compliance in the AMP, [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," Line 124 (Tribal values monitoring) - Tbe workplan (page 95) specifies that tribal monitoring efforts will be "piloted" in 2006 and no funding is identified in the following year. Tbis seems to suggest tbat tbe program will in an R&D pbase during FY-2006. Given tbis, tbe element sbould probably be listed as a researcb element for 2006 (not core monitoring). Tbe priority oftbis researcb effort will be discussed in tbe GCMRC researcb Ian now bein develo ed. Only one year of funding is identified because the BAHG insisted that the FY06 budget needed to be a one-year budget, rather than a two year budget as originally proposed by GCMRC, Also, please recall that the FY06 workplan reviewed by BAHG in April was written prior to the redefinition of core monitoring as being only applicable to projects that were already PEP'd, piloted, peer-reviewed and fully implemented (a decision made at the March CMT meeting), Until there is clear agreement on what is or is not considered to be "core monitoring", and TWG members come to full agreement on what the final core monitoring plan will contain, redefining these projects as research seems premature, We can note in the budget sheet that these are projects undergoing R&D for CM if that makes everyone more comfortable. [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," BAHG advocates moving ahead, but in a hased . . Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget - BOR GCMRC 02117/0511:05 AM