Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY06 Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

General Comments (and GCMRC’s Draft Responses, 04/27/05) 

General 1 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

As specified by the AMWG, two ’06 budgets must be prepared. One with 

experimental actions and one without experimental actions. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#1 

In response to the AMWG motion and request from the BAHG, two versions of the 

FY 2006, budget tables were prepared by the GCMRC staff. These versions 

assumed that a DOI burden rate of 15% would need to be applied to the science 

funds, unless a special pass-through rate is approved for FY 2006. 

The Non-Experimental version reflects a strategic effort to reprogram the $791,000 

(gross total with burden), originally proposed in the GCMRC’s 2002 Experimental 

Plan design as the fourth year of mechanical removal, into other non-experimental 

efforts, as per the recommendations of the Budget ad-hoc group. On the basis of 

discussions with the BAHG chairperson, it appears that the main recommendation 

for reprogramming these funds is to have them carried forward into the FY 2007-08, 

period for use in supporting experimental treatments implemented once the 

Experimental Plan is completed and approved. 

The Experimental version of the plan includes experimental elements (both flow 

and non-flow) that are recommended by the GCMRC staff and its cooperators on the 

basis of: 1) science knowledge gained since the experimental treatments began in 

2003, 2) the strategic design of the GCMRC’s original experimental plan (2002), 3) 

existing environmental compliance, 4) agreed upon “conservation measures” 

associated with the experimental compliance, and 5) the fiscal reality of the 

projected budget for FY 2006. 

General 2 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

The GCMRC’s 2006 Draft Workplan and Budget must be viewed as a 

provisional budget given that a great deal of planning is underway to establish 

program priorities in both research and monitoring. Given this, there should 

be a caveat included at the front of the workplan and budget that states that 

program elements included may be modified based on the outcome of this 

planning effort (sometime before FY-2006). If we can’t make changes in ’06 

based on this planning analysis, it calls into question the rationale for going 

forward with our planning effort.) 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#2 

Owing to the fact that the FY 2006, draft work plan and budget will not be approved 

until nearly the end of the FY 2005 fiscal year, there is little time prior to FY 2006 to 

make changes prior to implementation in October 2005. Therefore, GCMRC 

believes that any changes that are required in the draft plan should be clearly 

identified by the TWG at its June 2005 meeting, well before approval of the work 

plan and budget by the AMWG in August 2005. The projects that are recommended 

by the TWG to the AMWG and forwarded onto DOI as recommended actions for 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

2

implementation in FY 2006, need to be fully resolved prior to the August 2005, 

AMWG meeting. 

General 3 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Related to this planning effort, the 2006 workplan and budget should better 

clarify what is proposed by GCMRC as core monitoring and what is proposed 

as research (also include a table of ID acronyms). Currently several elements 

are specified as core monitoring in the workplan and budget but are not 

included in the 2006 provisional CMP (e.g., fine sediment storage and KAS). 

Some elements described in the workplan as core monitoring are actually a 

combination of core monitoring and R&D (e.g., downstream fish monitoring). 

Some elements are listed as core monitoring in the CMP are not listed as core 

monitoring in the workplan (e.g., survey and control). Some elements listed as 

core monitoring in both the CMP and workplan have different budget amounts 

(e.g., Lees Ferry trout). Finally, some elements within the workplan are 

identified as core monitoring in the past but have been terminated in ’06 (e.g., 

Streamflow and SS transport) with no explanation. Below is a table that 

summarizes many of these inconsistencies. 

Item 

’06 Budget 

spreadsheet 

Line # 

’06 Budget 

spreadsheet

$ 

’06 

WP $ 

‘06 

Provisional

CMP $ 

Lake Powell 

Monitoring 158 215,250 215,250 445,500 

Downstream WQ and 

sediment mass flux 62 1,113,373 1,113,373 1,104,000 

Fine sediment storage 63 294,688 294,688 Not inc 

Lees Ferry trout 

monitoring 90 118,450 118,450 184,000 

KAS 87 221,260 221,260 Not inc 

Survey operations 130 148,523 148,523 100,000 

Control network 132 176,813 176,813 100,000 

Airborne RS 77 94,415 94,415 138,000 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#3 

The main reason there are inconsistencies between the FY06 budget and the FY06 

core monitoring plan is because the definition of core monitoring is not static and 

has changed since the FY06 budget was prepared. Furthermore, the FY06 budget 

lacks sufficient funding flexibility to accomplish all the identified core monitoring 

elements for even the “green projects” that are not considered to be within the FY06 

Provisional Core Monitoring Plan. We are addressing the discrepancies by including 

a paragraph and table within the FY06 Provisional Core Monitoring Plan that 

identifies the pieces of each project that will be funded in the FY06. The two 

projects previously described as “Streamflow and SS transport” and Downstream 

Quality of Water” have been integrated into one unified effort in the FY 2006 work 

plan and their budgets have both been reduced over the amounts that were approved 

in FY 2005. Including GCMRC salaries, the total of the combined FY06 project, 

now listed as “Downstream Quality of Water and sediment mass flux” is less than 

the total Core Monitoring components of the individual projects, plus associated 

salaries, as listed in the FY 2005 approved budget. It is only because the DOI 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

3

burden and the GCMRC salaries are now included in the combined project that the 

total cost for the project seems greater than the sum of the two projects described in 

the FY 2005 work plan and budget. 

General 4 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

GCMRC burden is listed as 15% in the ’06 budget. In the past two years two 

rates have been used (15% and 6%), and in 2003, a flat 6% was used. GCMRC 

has indicated that it is requesting that the burden rate be reduced to a flat 6% 

for 2006 and feels somewhat confident that the USGS Director may grant the 

waiver. It would seem that GCMRC should identify the amount that would be 

saved and where the funding would be used if a flat 6% burden rate were 

allowed. Specifying the savings be used for experimental actions might be a 

good way to justify the reduced rate. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#4 

On the basis of the GCMRC’s understanding of which project elements could 

qualify for a special “pass-through” rate of 6%, the original draft work plan (March 

2005, edition) budget included this reduced burden rate for only a subset of projects 

and was not applied to GCMRC salaries or projected contract costs. To avoid 

creating a false sense of fiscal relief, the GCMRC believes that the most 

conservative approach to take in making budget projections, is to apply the special 

rate to only those project costs that have previously been approved for the “passthrough” until such time that a final decision is reached on whether or not the 

reduced rate will be applied to all science costs (see response to General Comment 

#1, above). However, in an attempt to provide the BAHG with additional budget 

information relating to this sensitive and critical issue, the GCMRC has prepared two 

additional versions of the budget spreadsheets using the proposed alternate burden 

rate of 6% for all of the GCMRC science funding. While there is a substantial fiscal 

relief provided by making this change to the FY 2006, there is absolutely no basis at 

this time for assuming that this discounted rate will be approved for use in FY 2006 

on all science funds. These alternate versions are provided as means to promote 

discussion among the BAHG, but in no way are indicative of a budget policy change 

to an across the board reduction in the DOI burden rate for the 2006 fiscal cycle. 

General 5 

(WAPA) 

I do think the Core Monitoring Team and GCMRC need to discuss what is 

included in core monitoring. For example, is core monitoring just data 

collection and looking at trends or is it also separate full data analysis? Should 

the separate full data analysis show as separate project components? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#5 

The core monitoring activities are focused on data collection and the required data 

processing necessary to extend a time series for the resources in question. 

Interpretive analysis or synthesis of the existing data must be done as a separate and 

additional research activity. Annual updates included in future editions of the 

SCORE report would be developed by GCMRC staff using the extended time series 

for a given resource response. In this sense, there is a continuation of some level of 

interpretive evaluation. Additional elements of a time series tied to experimental 

research would need to be reported within the context of the given treatment or 

project. 

General 6 

(WAPA) 

Please include for each line item whether or not it is power revenues and which 

is not. Example is line 94 vs. line 159. 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

4

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#6 

Please note that everything in the budget above line 156 is derived from power 

revenue, with the exception of line #94 (temperature and habitat monitoring), which 

was inadvertently included in this section of the budget. This project will be moved 

below the line to join the other non-power revenue line items. 

General 7 

(WAPA) 

The differences between red and blue are unclear. Does the blue mean 

potentially unfunded, up for discussion or are they completed? May need more 

colors or better clarification. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#7 

For greater clarification in the budget sheet, all cells in Column A of the spreadsheet 

that both contain a project number AND are highlighted in BRIGHT GREEN, are 

recommended by the GCMRC for budget approval and implementation during FY 

2006. In revising the draft work plan, an additional section will be added to Chapter 

1, describing the status of all other projects that are listed in the budget table, but not 

associated with the above two criteria. 

General 8 

(WAPA) 

Show line items as completed if done and for what year it was completed. Don’t 

list it as a zero. Example is line 112. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#8 

See above response for General #7. 

General 9 

(WAPA) 

The findings and recommendations of the geomorphology (February 2005, 

workshop recommendations) need to be identified in the budgeted projects. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#9 

Please recall that the FY06 workplan reviewed by BAHG in April was written prior 

to the geomorphology workshop. We will incorporate the information from the 

workshop and address these recommendations in the next version of the work plan. 

General 10 

(WAPA) 

Page 130 Task Groups 

Are these funded? Are there tasks for them in 06? Clarify why they are 

discussed. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

General 

Comment 

#10 

These Task Groups are not formally funded and no specific tasks are identified for 

the FY 2006 period. Any additional costs associated with such activities would need 

to be covered under the AMWG/TWG requests category, or from a funded project 

specific to the required Task Group activity. 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 5 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

Question 

Number Questions/Comments on Individual Budget Line Items 

11 

(BAHG) 

Line 19 (Public Outreach)--In the Reclamation budget section, there are no 

funds identified for Public Outreach. Is this because we expect the carryforward to exceed the $75,000 limit identified by AMWG? 

BOR’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#11 

Yes, at the present rate of expenditures we anticipate the Public Outreach group, 

which has been allocated $130,000 thus far, will have in excess of $75,000 available 

at the end of the fiscal year. 

12 

(BAHG) 

Lines 37-52 (Tribal Consultation)--What additional information is available on 

purpose and products for tribal funding as requested by TWG? 

BOR’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#12 

The Reimbursable Service Agreement from the Department of the Interior identifies 

four areas of endeavor for the tribes to undertake for this funding under the 

GCDAMP: (1) evaluation of resource management issues, (2) tribal monitoring of 

canyon resources, (3) attendance at meetings, and (4) government-to-government 

consultation. 

13 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Line 62 (Integrated downstream water quality monitoring) – The workplan 

(page 64) discusses fine sediment mass balance. This discussion specifically 

relates to mass balance within Marble and Grand canyons. Discussions with 

GCMRC have revealed that Glen Canyon may not be the sacrifice zone 

originally assumed regarding sediment storage and may actually respond as the 

ROD model had predicted. As I understand it GCMRC will begin studying 

mass balance within the Glen Canyon reach in more detail in coming years. 

This fact should be reflected in the workplan for 2006. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#13 

This additional activity is partly referred to in the description of “lesser tributary” 

monitoring (Water Holes Canyon). Additional efforts to capture suspendedsediment data at the Lees Ferry gage on an event basis will be included in the draft 

revision for the FY 2006 plan. Additional main channel sampling of suspendedsediment transport at the Lees Ferry gage site will come at additional cost to the 

Downstream Quality-of-Water project, but it is currently hoped that these activities 

can be covered within the currently proposed FY 2006 budget amount, owing to the 

use of automated pumping sampler technology that can now be controlled by twoway, satellite telemetry system that has been innovated by the GCMRC’s Physical 

Science program. This is potentially one example of our ability to do more with less 

in the mass balance of sand effort, owing to technological innovation. 

14 

(WAPA) 

A.2/A.3 

Part A - Crosswalk to Core Monitoring does not work. Maybe due to 

misunderstanding from use of different names. A green CM project, 

Streamflow and SS Transport is shown as unfunded. 

Part B - It would help to use the same terms/names for monitoring components 

and project names. Otherwise, it is very difficult to track across years, from 

table to narrative and to other plans. 

Part C - It would help to have subsets or indents under each project; e.g. A2 or 

A3 showing cost and component name. We would like the costs for individual 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

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 be good to 

show the analysis budgeted with the experiment. 

GCMRC’s 

Responses 

To 

Comment 

#14 

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-ofWater project, as described in the draft text of the work plan, but the draft 

plan sections related to the fine-sediment monitoring/EXP 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 if that 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 number and the cell in column A of the spreadsheet 

is highlighted in BRIGHT GREEN (see footnotes in the revised budget 

sheets). 

E) This is only a portion of the total cost for this project that the GCMRC 

estimated on the basis of an estimate from the Arizona District for the coremonitoring 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 confluence), 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 finesediment 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 likely be available for 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

7

analysis by GCMRC staff or cooperating scientists until the end of FY 2005. 

Results of the March 1996, test were completed and published between 

January 1998 and May 1999. The GCMRC plans to continue providing 

managers with preliminary updates on 2004 test results throughout FY 2005 

and 2006, until final reports are approved and distributed. 

15 

WAPA) 

DASA 

-Doing the analysis for the Nov 04 high flow in 06 seems late. Also, won’t the 

Science Symposium in October address the high flow? It would be better to 

have the information sooner in case nature cooperates with the potential for 

another experiment. Otherwise, it would not make sense to run another high 

flow. Budgets need to include analysis for experiments ASAP. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#15 

See Response to #14, above. 

16 

(BAHG) 

Line 77 (Air-Remote Sensing)--Are the FY 06 funding amounts for this effort 

correct now that it has been decided to conduct the system-wide over flight in 

FY 05? Is the FY 05 budget amount correct? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#16 

Yes, the FY 2006, budget amounts in the spreadsheet reflect the implementation of 

the May 2005, over flight. 

17 

(WAPA) 

A7, Line 80, work plan says 05 and 04 budgets were $80k not $160k. The table 

in the plan does not match with the budget table. If the $80k is correct, should 

reduce the $160k for freeing up money for other projects. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#17 

The draft plan text for project A.7 and associated budget table will be revised to 

match the budget spreadsheet. The disparity arose from the fact that the full 

GCMRC salaries were not included in the budget table shown in the FY05 annual 

plan, but these salary costs and indirect costs are included in the FY 2006 totals. 

18 

(WAPA) 

Line 81, channel mapping, is the analysis still ongoing for this project or is it 

completed? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#18 

The channel mapping efforts that started in 2001, are still underway during FY 2006. 

Bathymetry data collection and processing has been completed, but the task of 

combining the bathymetric data with 2000 terrestrial LiDAR data are still being 

completed towards development of full-channel geometry in reaches of Glen, Marble 

and eastern Grand Canyon that have been fully mapped. Those areas that have been 

completed are available for use by the sediment modeling team in support of 

predictive sediment simulations. 

19 

(BAHG) 

Line 87 (KAS and SWWF)--Funding for this project is increasing from $79,000 

to $221,260. The budget table shows marked increases in both outsourced labor 

and GCMRC salaries. What is the cause of these increases? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#19 

As described in previous years annual plans, the KAS project was restricted to the 

KAS project and the budget reflected the work associated with this project $79,000. 

This included outsourcing for field work, agreement oversight by the terrestrial 

biologist, survey support to measure habitat, and logistic support. At the same time 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

8

the KAS project was going on in previous years, there was also a terrestrial 

monitoring program occurring that incorporated the SWWF work. Support for 

SWWF work includes outsourcing field component, logistics support and oversight 

of the work by the terrestrial biologist at GCMRC. Starting in FY05, the terrestrial 

program was reduced to vegetation monitoring (2 trips/year), SWWF surveys (3 

trips/year) and a tribal monitoring component. A greater portion of GCMRC’s 

terrestrial biologist’s salary was covered within this project. The cost of these efforts 

is $200,000 less than in FY04. In FY06, terrestrial monitoring has been cut to only 

cover endangered species compliance monitoring, which means that the cost of 

SWWF is included in the outsourced science labor, logistics support and permitting. 

The cost of the terrestrial biologist position is included in this total project cost. 

Relative to previous years, the total terrestrial program has sustained a reduction in 

budget and scope from $632,000 to $221,260, approximately a 65% cut in this 

program. In FY06, this means that there will be no monitoring of riparian birds, 

except SWWF, vegetation, or other wildlife. 

20 

(WAPA) 

Bioscience 

B1, line 87, there is not justification for the significant increase. Without 

justification, it needs to be reduced to fee up money for other projects. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#20 

See response to comment #19, above. 

21 

(BAHG) 

Line 88 (Aquatic Foodbase - Monitoring)--This line item is identified as Core 

Monitoring, yet our understanding is that it is research directed at identifying 

methods and metrics for monitoring application. Funding has increased from 

$248,000 in FY 04 to a requested $460,575 in FY 06. What justifies this increase 

in funding? Also, the TWG was informed by Jeff Lovich that a project like this 

would not be undertaken without a NSF level proposal being developed and 

submitted to the TWG. We do not believe that this has been done and would 

like to receive the proposal for review. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#21 

Recall, that the budget was developed prior to the CMP ad hoc group deciding to 

restrict the CMP to the green projects, hence the notation in the budget line as CM. 

This is an easy adjustment. 

With respect the budget increase, the increase represents $80,000 in burden and the 

salary of the aquatic biologist that will be working in a cooperative effort with 

researchers to be identified through the RFP process. 

The costs for the program in FY06 are relatively unchanged since 2004, if 

burden is added to each of these years: 

• FY04 $248,000 + 60,000 + 59,000 + burden = $422, 050. 

• FY05 $315,000 + 59,000 + burden = $430,00 

• FY06 $400,500 + burden = $460,575 (this is $17,675.00 more than 

the COLA at 3%) 

 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

9

In past years, the salary for the aquatic biologist was shared between fishery work 

and the aquatic food base program. In FY06 the salary is tied solely to the aquatic 

food base. 

This project is being put out in FY2005 as an RFP. As such the project will receive 

proposals from outsides sources that will be subject to peer review. The review is 

anticipated to occur in August 2005. 

22 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Line 88 (Foodbase) – The budget and workplan indicates that funds have been 

or will be expended (in ’04 and ’05, respectively) yet the description of the 

project indicates that the RFP will be issued in ’05 and implemented in ’06. It is 

unclear how the ’04 funds were utilized and if the RFP is obligated in ’05, how 

will the ’06 funds be utilized? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#22 

In FY2004 the budget for food base monitoring was reduced to support experimental 

flows work which included primary production and carbon flux, food base impacts 

of fluctuating flows and experimental high flows (EHF). The program manager at 

the time, Steven Gloss, initiated a research program for a carbon budget that utilized 

a portion of these funds to test methods to measure productivity. The total budget in 

FY04 associated with food base work was $367,000. The EHF money and 

remaining money in the food base monitoring project was intended for carry forward 

into FY05. As a result of shortfalls associated with overhead rates, this money was 

used to cover these expenses in FY04. In FY05 the budgeted amount for food base 

work is 315,000. The funds in FY05 are being allocated for the RFP and to cover 

the aquatic biologist position. In FY06, the proposed budget is intended to support 

the RFP that is funded in FY05 for a second year. This is a multi-year project 

involving 2 field seasons to account for variability. Funds to be available to 

researcher/cooperators is approximately 200,000/year for approximately two years. 

23 

(WAPA) 

B2, line 88, Should be RES not CM. It is unclear how 05 $ were spent and how 

06 will be spent if issuing an RFP in 08. For 06, are there any river trips? How 

much will it cost to develop the long term monitoring protocols? Please show 

how the $460k is divided by project components. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#23 

We can change the CM to RES. 

In 05 the dollars are being spent to pay salary for the aquatic biologist’s position at 

GCMRC and to be obligated to a research team following the release of an RFP in 

May and subsequent review and award in August of 2005. The intent of this 

initiative is to develop monitoring protocols so that an RFP for monitoring of food 

base can be released in FY08. The money budgeted in FY06 will support a multiyear effort to develop a monitoring approach. This would be the second year of 

funding for this project. The budget table (Excel spreadsheet) provides an indication 

of how the $460,000 is allocated, including ~ $215,000 to outside researches 

identified through the RFP process (project components may include drift sampling 

methods, stable isotope techniques to identify utilized food resources by fish and 

methods to quantify primary productivity), logistics (approximately 4 trips/year), 

and the aquatic biologist salary. 

24 

(WAPA) 

B3, line 89, change from CM to RES. Narrative mentions “remaining funds” 

for long term monitoring program. Clarify costs related to this and other 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

10

aspects. There seems to be two components to this: one for monitoring on the 

river and one for developing a monitoring program. Please show costs for each. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#24 

The downstream fish project includes a CM component which is HBC in the LCR. 

So this is a hybrid project of sorts. Costs for HBC in the LCR include approximately 

$350,000 for outsourced labor and logistics. Mainstem monitoring, though not part 

of the FY06 CMP include mainstem salmonid monitoring. This monitoring supports 

the mechanical removal effort to help track system wide trends associated with 

Salmonids below the Paria River. The cost for this work is approximately $100,000 

with additional costs for logistics for 2 trips/year, one of which takes out at South 

Cove to cover the below Diamond Creek stretch of river. 

The remaining budget would be associated with testing monitoring methods like 

using an underwater camera, alternative capture gear or radio tag scanners. In the 

budget there is a line item of $20,000 which is for net replacement, PIT tag 

purchases ($3.00/tag) and equipment repair associated with electrofishing gear. 

Included in this budget overall are salaries for a fisheries biologist and technician. 

The technician ensures that equipment is in good repair and ready for all fish trips.

25 

(WAPA) 

B4, in tight budget years, such as 06, can this be reduced? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#25 

B4 is a core monitoring project in FY06. The budget allocated in FY06 is already 

reduced to a value less than what GCMRC recommends for this project to be whole 

for core monitoring. The current budget does not include snorkel survey work, and 

there is no specific salary for oversight by GCMRC for this project. Reducing the 

project costs more would eliminate the utility of having a monitoring project 

associated with the Lees Ferry Trout fishery. 

26 

(BAHG) 

Line 94 (Temperatures and Habitat Use Monitoring)--This project, which is not 

proposed for funding in FY 06 is listed as experimental, yet its title indicates 

that it is monitoring. Also, our understanding is that the work done in this 

project is to collect data to be used in the TCD evaluation. Why is it being 

dropped, and how does it differ from what is being done under downstream 

water quality monitoring? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#26 

These funds are Section 8 funds under the discretion of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

We have discussed this line with the HBC ad hoc group and their recommendation is 

that this be kept below the line of AMP dollars to reduce confusion. These funds are 

associated with the TCD project. 

27 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Line 99 (Mechanical removal) – The workplan (page 88) specifies that “the need 

for this work to accompany implementation of other experimental factors...” 

Please indicate what other experimental factors must be implemented in order 

to make this a viable workplan element. If these factors are not included in the 

budget is it the recommendation of GCMRC that mechanical removal not be 

implemented in ’06? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

As indicated in the original experimental design provided to the AMWG in 2002 as 

well as numerous interactions with the TWG, AMWG, and various ADHOC groups 

of both, attempting to discover which factors are most influential in controlling HBC 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

11

#27 recruitment logically includes exploring the affect of temperature, dam operations, 

and non-native interactions. These factors should be explored in a long-term 

experimental framework. Without attempting to control these other likely important 

factors in a rigorous design will seriously degrade our ability to determine the effect 

of non-native control on HBC recruitment dynamics. 

We do not necessarily recommend that mechanical removal not proceed in ’06, but 

again, that decision should be framed in the context of the LTEP. 

28 

(WAPA) 

B6, can we reduce the number of trips from six to four? Then, reprogram 

dollars. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#28 

This is ill-advised in the context of experimentation to determine the effect of nonnative control on HBC recruitment dynamics since it potentially changes the severity 

of the treatment and therefore the response. Council from the science advisors early 

on in the development of this project advised to implement a treatment magnitude as 

large as possible to have the greatest likelihood of measuring an effect. 

Additionally, changing the severity of the treatment potentially results in a changed 

experimental design limiting options for LTEP planning, and ultimately the ability to 

determine the effect of non-native control on HBC recruitment dynamics. 

With the above points in mind and a clear understanding that at the present time the 

science cannot clearly answer the question of whether or not mechanical removal is 

benefiting HBC recruitment dynamics, there is no reason that managers cannot 

embrace mechanical removal as a management action that should be implemented at 

whatever scale they deem appropriate. Though funds for a management action may 

need to be provided from sources other than AMP funds. 

29 

(BAHG) 

Line 101 (Translocation of HBC)--No funds are identified for this conservation 

measure. Will it not be accomplished? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#29 

That was an oversight and will be added to the budget/workplan as per a discussion 

with the HBC ad hoc group. 

30 

(BAHG) 

Line 106 (Concurrent Estimates HBC)--The BAHG would like information on 

what products or efforts were funded in FY 04 ($250,000) and FY 05 ($200,000) 

under this line item. No information is provided in Table B.5 of the workplan or 

in the accompanying text. We can not determine whether the request for FY 06 

is justified without this information. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#30 

Funds in FY04 were used to cover costs associated with the Santa Barbara workshop 

that reviewed sampling methods and population estimate models used in Grand 

Canyon and the upper basin. The remaining funds were intended to be carried 

forward into FY05, but were used to cover costs associated with overhead costs 

charged by USGS. Funds in FY05 are being used for simulation modeling as 

directed by the Secretary’s designee. They are also being used to ensure that other 

HBC projects are completed, or initiated like the disease and parasite work, fall 

seining trip, and translocation associated with the biological opinion conservation 

measures. The disease and parasite work was to be fully funded in FY05 with carry 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

12

forward from FY04. These funds were not available for carry forward in FY05 in 

association with overhead costs. The translocation work associated with the 

biological opinion was not budgeted for beyond monitoring work. In FY05 it is 

planned that an additional translocation take place in July. The fall seining trip, 

though part of the downstream fish monitoring program requires additional funding 

to complete which the downstream fish budget does not currently have. 

31 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Line 106 (Concurrent population estimates) – The workplan (page 86) suggests 

that no funds were expended in ’04 or ’05 and does not discuss or suggest any 

past efforts yet the budget identifies specific amounts ($250,000 and $200,000 

respectively). Please clarify how the past dollars were spent or if unspent why 

they would not be available for ’06 uses. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#31 

See responses to comments above. 

32 

(WAPA) 

HCA 

B5, line 106, kept this line item in, the 05 simulation will tell us what to do in 06. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#32 

No response needed. 

33 

(BAHG) 

Line 123 (Integrated Archaeological Monitoring)--The budget for this work has 

increased from $235,000 to $391,000, but the methods and protocols are not yet 

developed. What justifies this increase in funding? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#33 

Over the years, the amount of money directed at cultural resources monitoring has 

been cut back repeatedly, to the point that the NPS River Corridor Monitoring 

Program is now receiving about half of what they received when they began the 

monitoring efforts. While cut backs may be justifiable in some respects, the current 

funding is not adequate to provide credible, unbiased, information related to status 

and trends in archaeological site condition over time. As explained in the FY06 

work plan project description, GCMRC is proposing to follow through with one of 

the 2000 PEP recommendations by refocusing monitoring of cultural resources so as 

to better meet the needs of the AMP for quantifiable, replicable information about 

rates and amounts of erosion occurring under different dam operating scenarios. 

One part of the proposed approach will entail repeat systematic mapping of a random 

sample of sites within the river corridor. Mapping will measure changes in gully 

lengths, widths and depths as well as volumetric change (changes in surface 

topography relative to an established baseline map.) We already know that 

archaeological sites occur in a wide variety of topographic and sedimentological 

settings, therefore we need to start with an adequately sized sample of sites to ensure 

that the variability in erosion rates will be adequately represented. We are starting 

with a sample of 40 sites, which represents about 12.5% of the approximately 318 

NR eligible sites within the previously defined Area of Potential Effect. After we 

have collected data for a few years, we may be able to adjust and refine the sample 

size based on the variability encountered. We are also proposing to continue 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

13

collecting some of the same legacy data that the NPS feels is essential to meet their 

internal needs for Section 110 compliance, but we will be refocusing the data 

collection strategy so that the data are no longer skewed towards the most heavily 

visited and most threatened sites, and we will be refining the data fields so that the 

data are not redundant or artificially weighted and so the data leads logically to an 

objective condition rating that will be suitable for assessing trends in resource 

condition over time. The budget is based on the amount of field work and data 

processing necessary to achieve this end result. 

34 

(WAPA) 

Socio-cultural Program 

C1, line 123, Should be RES not CM. Costs are too high since the monitoring 

effort is expected to be reduced. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#34 

See previous response. The monitoring effort for cultural resources is not expected 

to be reduced until after the treatment plan for Grand Canyon has been developed 

and implemented; this is not likely to occur until sometime after FY06. 

35 

(BAHG) 

Line 124 (Integrated Tribal Values Monitoring)--Is the GCDAMP structured to 

monitor tribal values or resources of importance to the tribes? Is this funding 

intended to be an entitlement for the tribes or will it be administered through a 

competitive process by GCMRC? How was the amount of funding determined 

when, as we evidenced at the last TWG meeting, the tribes are not in agreement 

on the objectives for this monitoring or the methods that would be employed? If 

the tribes are not in agreement, how is this monitoring considered to be 

integrated? Based on the description in the workplan, it appears that TCPs 

need to be identified before there can be agreement on what resources need to 

be monitored. Will this be done in advance of FY 06 funding being allocated? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#35 

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 nonissue. 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 

PA, but NR eligible TCPs are not the only resources of concern to the tribes. The 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

14

evaluation of TCPs 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. 

36 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Line 124 (Tribal values monitoring) – The workplan (page 95) specifies that 

tribal monitoring efforts will be “piloted” in 2006 and no funding is identified in 

the following year. This seems to suggest that the program will in an R&D 

phase during FY-2006. Given this, the element should probably be listed as a 

research element for 2006 (not core monitoring). The priority of this research 

effort will be discussed in the GCMRC research plan now being developed. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#36 

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. 

37 

(WAPA) 

C2, cost seems high and premature since don’t have solid proposals from tribes. 

Only solid proposals should be considered for funding. Would it be possible to 

issue an RFP and have responses from tribes for evaluation? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#37 

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 

proposals came in considerably higher than that figure. The FY06 budget identifies 

about $50,000 per tribe for monitoring, with the idea that some savings could be 

achieved by strategically combining river trips, by collaborating with other 

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. 

38 

(BAHG) 

Line 125 (Integrated Campsite Monitoring Program)--We question the cost of 

this project, $221,996 in FY 06, particularly since it can be viewed as part of the 

fine sediment storage monitoring (A.3) under physical sciences. GCMRC should 

look closely at whether better integration of these two efforts will not allow cost 

savings. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#38 

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): 1) 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 

campsites using the same monitoring methods that been used for the past sever 

years, while 3) simultaneously testing and evaluating alternative methods (such as 

the sand area change detection methods piloted by Mike Breedlove), and 4) continue 

the photographic record of beach changes through the Adopt-A-Beach effort. The 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

15

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 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Line 125 (Campsite inventory) – This project is not listed as a green element in 

the CMP and it shouldn’t be assumed that it will be developed in 2006. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#39 

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 

as being only applicable to projects that were already PEP’d, piloted, peer-reviewed 

and fully implemented ( this decision was made at the March CMT meeting). Until 

there is clear agreement on what is or is not considered “core monitoring”, and the 

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 

(WAPA) 

C3, not CM, it is RES. How does the recreational PEP in 05 fit into this 

recommendation? We need the PEP to define what should be done. The cost 

seems high for a research project to determine core monitoring. When this 

monitoring is done, we would like to know if visitor use increases erosion at 

campable beaches. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#40 

See responses to Items 28 and 29. We would be happy to factor in the effects of 

visitor use in evaluating erosion at campsites in a future monitoring program. Helen 

will apprise the PEP reviewers that this is an interest of an AMP stakeholder. 

41 

(WAPA) 

Logistics Support 

D1, for the first note, is the cost also showing somewhere else and double 

funded? This needs clarification. How does the burden apply to this? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#41 

Project D1 Budget Table in the GCMRC workplan reflects a breakdown of full 

logistics costs. Actual logistics costs are distributed to each project line item in the 

budget table, only direct logistics costs (equipment replacement & salaries) are listed 

in the budget table line for logistics and therefore NOT double funded in the budget 

table. Burden charges are applied appropriately in the budget table. 

42 

(Norm 

Henderson) 

Line 130 and 132 (survey and control network) – It is difficult to understand 

how survey and control network elements are considered core monitoring. 

Given that there is a great deal of emphasis no given to ISTAR imagery that is 

already orthorectified, what is the justification or rationale for additional 

funding for its continuation? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#42

The mission of these two distinct yet related projects is to provide spatial data in 

support of scientific investigations within the Grand Canyon CRE. These services 

are required in support of Core Monitoring projects regardless of whether the data is 

collected conventionally or by remotely sensed technologies. As such, the positional 

accuracy of each dataset must be well defined locally (at a specific site or along a 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

16

short river reach) and regionally (throughout the length of the CRE). The data must 

be correctly and consistently referenced to the National Spatial Reference System 

(NSRS) for reliable use in Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The results of 

a rigorously tested control network determines local and network accuracies of each 

spatial data set, validates that contractors are meeting their stated accuracy 

requirements, and assures GCD-AMWG is making decisions based on realistic and 

reliable spatial data. Defining this hierarchy is critical since diverse methods are used 

to determine positions, including remote sensing, conventional ground-based optical 

methods, and the Global Positioning System (GPS). It is important to note that these 

efforts are required by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) as per 

Executive Order 12906 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16. 

Corrections to budget table D2 in the workplan will be adjusted as noted. 

43 

(WAPA) 

Part A - D2, correct the table, DOE 15% for 02, 03, 04 and 05, they should be 

moved to the totals. 

Part B - D2/D3, are the control point databases and the geodectic control 

network the same? We noted that on page 113, the title is consequences of 05 

funding, this should be 06. It should be corrected other places in the document. 

On page 113, should “preserved” be changed to “unnecessary?” 

GCMRC’s 

Responses 

to Comment 

#43

Part A - Minor corrections to the workplan text (05 to 06 and “preserved” to 

“conserved”) will be adjusted as noted. 

Part B - The control point database and geodetic control network are two distinct yet 

related projects. Both are required to provide spatial data in support of Core 

Monitoring projects. The control point database includes the results from geodetic 

control network adjustments (similar to NGS datasheets), but also organizes 

previously determined coordinates for each station. For instance, there are 

substantial coordinate shifts (up to 2 meters) from GCES era control work as 

compared to most recent GPS results; indeed many of these datasets have been 

simply referenced to an ambiguous local coordinate system. These coordinate errors 

then apply to all spatial data referenced to these positions. The control point database 

accurately referenced to the geodetic control network is essential to the GIS because 

it will allow researchers to perform spatial analysis of previously or historically 

collected spatial data (along with all associated errors) with the most recent data 

referenced to the National Spatial Reference System. 

REFERENCES:

Federal Geographic Data Committee (1998) FGDC Content Standard for 

Digital Geospatial Metadata, version 2, FGDC-STD-001-1998, 90 pp. 

[available online at 

http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/documents/standards/metadata/v2_0698.pdf] 

Federal Geographic Data Committee (1998) Geospatial Positioning Accuracy 

Standards, FGDC-STD-007.2-1998, Federal Geographic Data Committee, 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

17

Reston, Virginia, USA, 128 pp. [available online at 

http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/documents/standards/accuracy/ ] 

Federal Geographic Data Committee (2000) Content Standard for Digital 

Geospatial Metadata Workbook, Version 2.0, 122 pp. Federal Geographic 

Committee, c/o USGS, Reston, VA, 126 pp. [available online at 

http://libraries.mit.edu/gis/teach/workbook_0501_bmk.pdf] 

Federal Register (1994)Volume 59 Number 71, pp17671-17674 Coordinating 

Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: the National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure. 

http://www.fgdc.gov/publications/documents/geninfo/execord.html

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16 (2002) National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure[available online at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016_rev.html] 

For additional information, please contact: 

_________________________________________ 

Keith Kohl 

Survey Technician 

(928) 556-7371 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

U.S. Geological Survey 

2255 N. Gemini Drive 

Room 418 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

kkohl@usgs.gov 

www.gcmrc.gov 

44 

(WAPA) 

Information Office 

E1, change title for E to match the title in the budget table. Remove some of the 

narrative in this section since it is now red. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#44 

Title has been changed to match. Second comment not addressed since it pertains to 

the CMP per conversation with Mary Barger on 4/27. 

45 

(BAHG) 

Line 137 (Systems Administration)--This project, like others, identifies 

constraints caused by reduced funding (Reduced funding will result in the 

possible loss of scientific data due to backup equipment failure and lack of 

storage capacity), yet, in fact, increased funding is advocated for the project 

compared with FY 05. In this example, GCMRC salaries increase by nearly 

$50,000, $5,000 is added for training, and a burden of 15% is applied. Several 

places in the workplan contain statements like "In FY06 a significant reduction 

in available funds has occurred compared to the prior fiscal budget", yet 

comparison of the funds available on line 203 shows that FY06 funds exceed 

FY05 funds. Please resolve the disparity between the statement and the funds 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

18

table. It is also difficult in this project, as in others, to compare total costs when 

burden is not allocated over projects in the past as it is for FY 06. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#45 

The net systems administration budget has increased only slightly from FY05 to 

FY06. The apparent increase indicated in the FY06 budget table is the result of three 

things: 

1. Project travel and training, an increasing need because of new technology 

and federal regulations, was increased from zero to $5,000. 

2. The true costs of salaries is projected in FY06. In previous years the salary 

estimates were under funded. The contractors’ salaries are added in and the 

base salary of $80,000 was increased to a more accurate estimate of 

$112,000. 

3. Unlike FY05, in FY06 the project need was established and the burden added 

to it. In essence, the increase is less than $30,000 when burden is accounted 

for. 

The systems administration account is considered to be fully funded in FY06 at the 

amounts indicated in the budget table. References to insufficient funding in the 

systems administration description are hypothetical for the purpose of illustrating the 

effect of budget shortfalls. 

46 

(WAPA) 

E2, 04/05 costs for the table and the narrative don’t match. Please correct. 

-We don’t understand the reference to footnote 2 in the table. Please clarify. 

-It is unclear if the internet and web bullets on page 120 are related to E1 which 

is shown as unfunded. How is E1 different? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#46 

04/05 budget numbers in the table and narrative have been corrected so that they 

match. 

Somewhere along the line footnotes were converted from numbers to asterisk. 

However, this one was not converted. It has been corrected. 

E1 is an overview of the Information Office. Bullets on page 120 (in E2) are a more 

detailed description of this overview. E1 and E2 refer to the same activity. 

47 

(WAPA) 

Line 138, what happened with this line item? Was the computer bought? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#47 

This line item refers to computer support (not a specific computer) needed to service 

additional staff and equipment related to experimental flows. This cost is reoccurring and has been folded into the systems administration budget in 06. 

48 

(WAPA) 

Admin Support 

F1, USGS local network shows under system administration also. Is this a 

double count? Make sure the table and numbers all match. Justification for 

costs is identical for the 05 work plan, but there are significant changes. Please 

provide a more detailed justification. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#48 

Much of the difference between FY05 and FY06 can be attributed to the burden rate 

of 15%. In FY05, the gross request was $638,600 and burden has to be subtracted 

from that amount. In FY06, the gross amount is $726,570 that, with burden 

subtracted, equals $631,800 – less than what the FY05 planned budget called for 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

19

with no burden deducted. 

The GCMRC Systems Administration budget includes the network charges directly 

associated with the GCMRC system. The costs in the Administrative Operations 

budget are for the Flagstaff Science Center system expenses with which GCMRC 

must integrate. These charges include telecommunications as well as IT and total 

approximately $153,000. In FY06 the costs of vehicle leasing and maintenance are 

increased to represent a more accurate number (approximately $56,500; and facilities 

and maintenance costs are reduced to a minimum estimate of $75,000. I attempted 

to reduce the administrative costs as much as possible to provide more funding for 

science activities. 

49 

(BAHG) 

Line 146 (Program Planning & Management)--We found that several of us 

could not identify all GCMRC program managers. Would you please identify 

them for the TWG in your budget presentation this year. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#49 

GCMRC Program Managers are: Physical and Modeling Science Programs, 

BioSciences Program, SocioCultural Program, Information Program and Logistics 

Support Program (five total). 

50 

(WAPA) 

F2, if this covers salaries for Program Managers, why are salaries showing up 

in Project narratives? As example, project C1. Is this double coverage? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#50 

The GCMRC staff salaries related to accomplishment of the specific projects (not 

including the non-Program Managers), are associated with the individual project 

budget tables, as well as the net and gross totals shown in the budget spreadsheet. 

51 

(BAHG) 

Line 147 (TWG/AMWG Participation)--The budget for this line is reduced 

from $46,350 to $17,250. Is the reduction merely a change in accounting? If so, 

where are the reallocated dollars included? 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#51 

In FY06, the salaries associated with AMWG/TWG participation were removed for 

Program Managers; those salaries are included in Program Planning and 

Management (line 146). For other personnel, the salary costs are included in their 

project-associated salaries. Ultimately, only travel costs are included for FY06. 

52 

(BAHG) 

Line 148 (Independent Reviews)--There is a reduction from $272,000 to 

$201,250 in this line item. It is not clear to us how these funds are divided 

between ad hoc independent reviews and the Science Advisors. The latter group 

is spending more time assisting GCMRC, TWG and ad hoc groups. We would 

like to be assured that they are adequately funded for this increased effort. 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#52 

The reduction in funding was initially input in an effort to create more funding for 

science related activities; ideally, the funding for this item would remain stable or 

increase. In light of the additional work that has recently (April 2005) been 

discussed with the Executive Secretary, this project is under funded. GCMRC 

recommendation: If additional funds should become available in association with a 

non-experimental version of the plan, a portion of the funds should be considered for 

use in covering the Independent Review shortfall.

53 

(Norm 

Line 159 (TCD) – No details on this element (WP page 89) are provided to 

justify the use of the $200K. 
TWG Budget Ad hoc Group 

GCMRC FY 06 Non-Experimental Budget and Work Plan Development 

Question/Response Table 

Document Reference: FY06 Master Draft AMP Budget – BOR GCMRC 02/17/05 11:05 AM 

20

Henderson) 

GCMRC’s 

Response to 

Comment 

#53 

These funds are Section 8 funds under the discretion of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

We have discussed this line with the HBC ad hoc group and their recommendation is 

that this be kept below the line of AMP dollars to reduce confusion. These funds are 

associated with the TCD project. 

T. Melis, GCMRC: 4/27/05