WSP06393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TWG Budget Ad hoc Group GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development Queslion/Response Table 6 components of A2 and a better description. Part D - Are projects with EXP also still being done at some level of normal monitoring? Seems like some of the EXP work is still being done. Part E - Seems like $1.1 million cost is high, need more information to understand what it all is. Part F - Unclear how the budget reflects the data analysis for the close out of FIST and the analysis of the Nov 04 high flow. Please split out the costs for this. Showing any analysis as an indented project with its own costs would be helpful. Having the high flow analysis in 06 seems late. Analysis for experiments should happen more quickly. In the future, it would bc good to show the analysis budl!eted with the experiment. The above comment is multi-part and lengthy, These will be addressed separately as follows: A) This project has been folded into the Downstream Integrated Quality-of- Water project, as described in the draft text of the work plan, but the draft plan sections related to the fine-sediment monitoringlEXP and the suspended-sediment mass balance will be reviewed and revised to better clarify the activities and timelines related to these budget items. B) Comment noted and will be taken into consideration during draft revision in this and other sections, C) This information is broken out in the budget table for the project in the text of the draft work plan, Further breakdown can also be shown in the budget spreadsheet ifthat is helpful and promotes clarity, D) The EXP projects are note being done unless the line item in the budget is associated with a project nwnber and the cell in column A of the spreadsheet GCMRC's is highlighted in BRIGHT GREEN (see footnotes in the revised budget Responses sheets), To E) This is only a portion of the total cost for this project that the GCMRC Comment estimated on the basis of an estimate from the Arizona District for the core- #14 monitoring described in the draft Core-Monitoring plan, This amount reflects the costs for continuing the Quality-of-Water efforts (including measurements of surface water (stage and discharge), temperature, specific conductivity and suspended-sediment transport in the Paria (near Lees Ferry) and Little Colorado Rivers (near Cameron and above the confluenc,e), and at four sites along the main channel of the CRE, between Lees Ferry and Phantom Ranch (river miles 0, 30, 61 and 87), F) Some preliminary analyses and reporting occurred on the November 2004, Experimental High-Flow (reports to the TWG and AMWG) within a few months of the event. However, full data processing of all samples and data, plus completion of peer-reviewed final reports for the various physical science project elements cannot be accomplished in less than one year (by September 2005). Additional time and funding is needed by the fine- sediment storage change and sand mass-flux projects in FY 2006, to fully accomplish the analysis and reporting objectives. For instance, remotely sensed data from the May 2005 over flight will not likelv be available for . . . Documenl Reference: FY06 Masler Draft AMP Budgel- BOR GCMRC 02117105 t J ,05 AM