Laserfiche WebLink
in -kind services for cost -share demonstration purposes. <br />Peer Review - reviewed and adopted Hamill's proposed revision with clarification <br />that Program Director has flexibility to have somebody other than the Coordinator <br />assemble the Panel and that the Coordinator will not be a member of the Panel; <br />BSaunders raised Utah's concern that Peer Review Panels will be organized by the <br />Program Director to "roll over" the concerns of the Biology Committee(Leo <br />Lensch used terms "pure" vs "polluted" at the Biology Committee yesterday to <br />characterize his concern over this potential tension); agreed that the scope of the <br />Panel's responsibility should be specified in writing before the Panel is convened, <br />and that the 3 purposes such Panels will serve should be articulated in the Plan: <br />(a) to bring in specialized expertise, (b) to get broader perspective than is <br />otherwise available within the RIP, and (c) to resolve disagreements or conflicts <br />among RIP participants; agreed that the Program Director will propose Panel <br />composition and consider feedback from the appropriate tech coinmittee(s) before <br />deciding on the final composition of the Panel. <br />Tech Committee Role in Reviewing Tech Advisory Panel Products - reviewed <br />and adopted Hamill's proposed revision. <br />Tech Committee Subcommittees - agreed to leave as is, although there is <br />sentiment to remove Management Committee from review of Tech Committee <br />decisions and remove Tech Subcommittees from the Staffing Plan. <br />Other suggestions raised to improve RIP effectiveness <br />• Scope -of -Work Improvement - not necessary to further revise Staffing Plan; <br />having Coordinators will help a lot, and a revision of the template for workplan <br />proposals to require better budget justification, better description of the relation to <br />other proposals, and identification of the hypothesis- to -be- tested will also help. <br />• E -Mail/ Electronic Bulletin Board - agreed to address as an FY95 Workplan item <br />tomorrow; not obvious which of the various services will work best. <br />• Secretarial Liaison - suggested that, if RMorgenweck's efforts in DC don't work, <br />agreed to prepare a letter for the non - federal participants to sign asking Secretary <br />Babbitt to appoint one. <br />• Meeting Conduct - no specific changes approved, although interest expressed in a <br />routine review of outstanding assignments. <br />3. RIPRAP CHANGES TO ADDRESS CRITICAL HABITAT <br />Rationale for the Chanyes. FWS didn't publish specific justification for each proposed <br />revision in the notice of public comment process (as promised last May) because of DOI policy <br />to keep the cost down when publishing notices in the Federal Register. Hamill distributed his <br />8/18/94 letter responding to John Shields' concern on this point. Management Committee <br />accepted that the changes are justifiable if needed to recover the fish, to protect critical habitat, <br />and to help assure that the RIP serves as a RPA. Agreed not to insist on additional justification, <br />and to focus on the acceptability of the proposed additions and their value the fish. <br />Expansion of RIP Coverage to Include Impacts Other -than Depletion Impacts. CRWCD <br />