WSP06393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 00474 TWG Budget Ad hoc Group GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development Question/Response Table 15 approach starting in FY 2006, What level could be supported by the BAHG?] 37 C2, cost seems bigb and premature since don't bave solid proposals from tribes. (WAPA) Only solid proposals sbould be considered for funding. Would it be possible to issue an RFP and bave responses from tribes for evaluation? GCMRC received draft proposals from four of five tribal entities in 12/04, The lowest monitoring proposal was for about $60,000 per year, and a couple of GCMRC's proposals came in considerably higher than that figure, The FY06 budget identifies Response to about $50,000 per tribe for monitoring, with the idea that some savings could be Comment achieved by strategically combining river trips, by collaborating with other #37 monitoring efforts where possible, and by supplementing the monitoring budgets with some of the funding that is coming to the tribes for general program Participation. Line 125 (Integrated Campsite Monitoring Program)--We question tbe cost of 38 tbis project, 5221,996 in FY 06, particularly since it can be viewed as part oftbe (BAHG) fine sediment storage monitoring (A.3) under physical sciences. GCMRC should look closely at wbether better integration of tbese two efforts will not allow cost savings. This project is separate from the FIST, although some of the same players are involved in both efforts, The FY06 project is attempting to accomplish several different tasks within a fairly compressed time frame (two years): I) create a baseline inventory of mapped campsites in a GIS that will serve multiple program and multiple agency needs for years into the future, 2) continue monitoring the NAU GCMRC's campsites using the same monitoring methods that been used for the past sever Response to years, while 3) simultaneously testing and evaluating alternative methods (such as Comment the sand area change detection methods piloted by Mike Breedlove), and 4) continue #38 the photographic record of beach changes through the Adopt-A-Beach effort, The baseline mapping effort, which comprises a large chunk of the FY06 budget, has been identified as a long-term need of this program for years, It is absolutely essential that we define current camp areas in an orthorectified GIS environment, so that changes in campsite area, topography, vegetation encroachment, and other attributes can be readily evaluated in the future system wide via analysis of remote sensing data, 39 Line 125 (Campsite inventory) - This project is not listed as a green element in (Norm the CMP and it shouldn't be assumed tbat it will be developed in 2006. Henderson) Please see previous response, Also, please recall that the FY06 work plan reviewed by BAHG in April was written prior to the RE-definition of core monitoring in FY06 GCMRC's as being only applicable to projects that were already PEP'd, piloted, peer-reviewed Response to and fully implemented ( this decision was made at the March CMT meeting), Until Comment there is clear agreement on what is or is not considered "core monitoring", and the #39 TWG comes to 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, 40 C3, not CM, it is RES. How does the recreational PEP in OS fit into tbis Documen\ Refe"nc", FY06 Master Drall AMP Budget - BOR GCMRC 02J! 7/05 I! :05 AM