Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />TwPBQd1.7AQ hoc Group <br /> <br />GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development <br />Question/Response Table <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> analysis by GCMRC staff or cooperating scientists until the end of FY 2005, <br /> Results of the March 1996, test were completed and published between <br /> January 1998 and May 1999, The GCMRC plans to continue providing <br /> managers with preliminary updates on 2004 test results throughout FY 2005 <br /> and 2006, Wltil final reports are approved and distributed, <br /> DASA <br /> -Doing the analysis for the Nov 04 high flow in 06 seems late. Also, won't the <br />15 Science Symposium in October address the high flow? It would be better to <br />W AP A) have the information sooner in case nature cooperates with the potential for <br /> another experiment. Otherwise, it would not make sense to run another high <br /> now. Budeets need to include analysis for experiments ASAP. <br />GCMRC's See Response to # 14, above, <br />Response to <br />Comment <br />#15 <br /> Line 77 (Air-Remote Sensing)--Are the FY 06 funding amounts for this effort <br />16 correct now that it has been decided to conduct the system-wide over flight in <br />(BAHG) FY 05? Is the FY 05 budget amount correct? [Need to re-distribute the RS <br />coordinator salary to other projects where time will be spent in FY 2006, such as <br /> ongoing development of channel mapping products] <br />GCMRC's Yes, the FY 2006, budget amounts in the spreadsheet reflect the implementation of <br />Response to the May 2005, over flight. <br />Comment <br />#16 <br />17 A7, Line 80, work plan says 05 and 04 budgets were S80k not S160k. The table <br />(W AP A) in the plan does not match with the budget table. If the S80k is correct, should <br />reduce the S160k for freeine UP money for other proiects. <br />GCMRC's The draft plan text for project A.7 and associated budget table will be revised to <br />Response to match the budget spreadsheet. The disparity arose from the fact that the full <br />Comment GCMRC salaries were not included in the budget table shown in the FY05 annual <br />#17 plan, but these salary costs and indirect costs are included in the FY 2006 totals. <br />18 Line 81, channel mapping, is the analysis still ongoing for this project or is it <br />(WAPA) completed? <br /> The channel mapping efforts that started in 2001, are still underway during FY 2006, <br />GCMRC's Bathymetry data collection and processing has been completed, but the task of <br />Response to combining the bathymetric data with 2000 terrestrial LiDAR data are still being <br />completed towards development of full-channel geometry in reaches of Glen, Marble <br />Comment and eastern Grand Canyon that have been fully mapped, Those areas that have been <br />#18 completed are available for use by the sediment modeling team in support of <br /> predictive sediment simulations, <br />19 Line 87 (KAS and SWWF)--Funding for this project is increasing from S79,000 <br />(BAHG) to S221,260. The budget table sbows marked increases in both outsourced labor <br />and GCMRC salaries. What is the cause of these increases? <br />GCMRC's As described in previous years annual plans, the KAS project was restricted to the <br />Response to KAS project and the budget reflected the work associated with this project $79,000, <br /> <br />Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budgel- BOR GCMRC 02117/05 II :05 AM <br />