Laserfiche WebLink
R3 -1 Document <br />Mark Butler distributed the R3 -1 Document consisting of a short introductory letter and tables <br />identifying the data parameters and time frame for evaluation of biological response for <br />fulfillment of the FWS's responsibility under milestone R3 -1. Mark noted that the FWS had also <br />drafted a version that contained a longer introduction outlining the FWS's rationale in identifying <br />the data parameters and time frames. This document as well as comments related to the <br />document are attached to the Technical Committee's (TC) May 31 -June 1 and June 20 -21 <br />meeting minutes. Mark also noted that they have started the process of comparing R3 -1 data <br />needs with the pr-ateeels; Paul T-C Chair-, agreed mith Mark <br />Butler's evaluation and thought the document gave direction to the TC and allowed the FWS to <br />complete their milestone. Dale explained that the TC will utilize the R3 -1 as part of the <br />Integrated Monitoring and Research Component (IMRC), and the document will continue to be <br />reviewed as the IMRC is reviewed. Mark Butler agreed that the R3 -1 milestone information as <br />well as information from milestone Rl -1 and R2 -1 need to be incorporated into the IMRC. The <br />R3 -1 data needs will be used to help give direction to protocol writing to ensure that FWS data <br />needs are addressed at a minimum during the Program. <br />Margot Zallen asked what would be provided to the Drafting Committee for attachment to the <br />Program. Dale responded that there are two options, 1) an IMRC that incorporates all TC <br />documents and 2) separate R3 -1 Document, Baseline Document, etc. Paul Tebbel noted that the <br />TC needs to decide which avenue they will follow. Ralph Morgenweck noted that the document <br />is meant to fulfill milestone R3 -1 and then the information can be used in the IMRC or <br />separately, but that the FWS is not asking for acceptance of the document at this meeting. Rick <br />Brown expressed concern that as a TC member he had not had the opportunity to review this <br />particular draft of the R3 -1 Document. Several GC members understood Rick's concerns and <br />Don Ament asked that the TC review and provide input on the document before the next GC <br />meeting. It was decided that the GC would defer review of the R3 -1 Document to the TC in a <br />similar manner as the review process used for state depletion plans. <br />Brian Barels suggested, and entire GC agreed, that the TC should meet in conjunction with the <br />GC for the next several meetings. Dale suggested that the GC take the opportunity to give <br />direction to the TC on several policy issues (e.g., how wide an area of interest because it has <br />budget implications). The May 31 -June 1 and June 20 -21 TC minutes and attachments will be <br />distributed to the GC prior to the next meeting. <br />EIS Status Report <br />Larry Todd provided the report in the absence of Curt Brown. Larry reported that the Sediment/ <br />Vegetation model has been calibrated successfully and the calibration has provided a great deal <br />of confidence in the model for the EIS Team. The EIS Team is currently using the model to <br />evaluate alternatives for the draft EIS that will be out in late August. Mark Butler asked if the <br />GC wanted Tim Randle and Peter Murphy, model authors, to provide a written report regarding <br />the model or if the GC would rather have the information provided in a workshop forum. <br />Several individuals asked that a written report be provided for review in advance of a workshop <br />to discuss the calibration and sensitivity analysis. The most recent version of the model will be <br />This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different <br />if corrections are made by the committee before approval. Page 2 of 8 <br />