Laserfiche WebLink
<br />8 <br /> <br />TWG Budget Ad hoc Group <br />GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development <br />QuestionlResponse Table <br /> <br />Comment <br />#19 <br /> <br />20 <br />(W AP A) <br /> <br />GCMRC's <br />Response to <br />Comment <br />#20 <br /> <br />21 <br />(BAHG) <br /> <br />GCMRC's <br />Response to <br />Comment <br />#21 <br /> <br />This included outsourcing for field work, agreement oversight by the terrestrial <br />biologist, survey support to measure habitat, and logistic support, At the same time <br />the KAS project was going on in previous years, there was also a terrestrial <br />monitoring program occurring that incorporated the SWWF work, Support for <br />SWWF work includes outsourcing field component, logistics support and oversight <br />of the work by the terrestrial biologist at GCMRC. Starting in FY05, the terrestrial <br />program was reduced to vegetation monitoring (2 trips/year), SWWF surveys (3 <br />trips/year) and a tribal monitoring component. A greater portion of GCMRC's <br />terrestrial biologist's salary was covered within this project. The cost of these efforts <br />is $200,000 lcss than in FY04, In FY06, terrestrial monitoring has been cut to only <br />cover endangered species compliance monitoring, which means that the cost of <br />SWWF is included in the outsourced science labor, logistics support and permitting. <br />The cost of the terrestrial biologist position is included in this total project cost. <br />Relative to previous years, the total terrestrial program has sustained a reduction in <br />budget and scope from $632,000 to $221,260, approximately a 65% cut in this <br />program, In FY06, this means that there will be no monitoring of riparian birds, <br />except SWWF, vegetation, or other wildlife, [Need to re-distribute the Terrestrial <br />Biologist salary to other projects where time will be spent in FY 2006, such as <br />completion of vegetation mapping] <br />Bioscience <br />Bl, line 87, there is not justification for the significant increase. Without <br />justification, it needs to be reduced to fee up money for other projects. <br />See response to comment #19, above. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Line 88 (Aquatic Foodbase - Monitoring)-- This line item is identified as Core <br />Monitoring, yet our understanding is that it is research directed at identifying <br />methods and metrics for monitoring application. Funding has increased from <br />5248,000 in FY 04 to a requested 5460,575 in FY 06. What justifies this increase <br />in funding? Also, the TWG was informed by Jeff Lovich that a project like tbis <br />would not be undertaken without a NSF level proposal being developed and <br />submitted to the TWG. We do not believe that this has been done and would <br />like to receive the proposal for review. <br />Recall, that the budget was developed prior to the CMP ad hoc group deciding to <br />restrict the CMP to the green projects, hence the notation in the budget line as CM, <br />This is an easy adjustment. <br /> <br />With respect the budget increase, the increase represents $80,000 in burden and the <br />salary of the aquatic biologist that will be working in a cooperative effort with <br />researchers to be identified through the RFP process, <br /> <br />The costs for the program in FY06 are relatively unchanged since 2004, if <br />burden is added to each of these years: . <br />. FY04 $248,000 + 60,000 + 59,000 + burden = $422, 050, <br /> <br />Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget - BOR GCMRC 02117/05 II :05 AM <br />