Laserfiche WebLink
provided to the model Ad Hoc group as soon as possible for their review and comments before <br />completion of the draft EIS. <br />Concern was raised that the time schedule for review of the SedNeg model was getting very <br />tight and time is short for production and review of many other items (e.g., the R3 -1 Document, <br />Baseline, peer review, etc). Several individuals indicated that GC members need to understand <br />the model and its use so they can answer questions that legislators and others will have regarding <br />the process and effectiveness of the model. Larry Todd indicated that the EIS Team has been <br />analyzing pieces of the proposed Program as they are supplied and they are currently looking at <br />GC will be available in the draft EIS for comment. Larry reported that the minimum comment <br />period is either 45 or 60 days and there is no maximum comment period. <br />Larry Todd indicated that if the Ad Hoc technical group finds a fatal flaw with the SedNeg <br />model during its review of the calibration, there will be little or no confidence in the model. <br />Larry indicated that the EIS Team needs to analyze the Program effects on sediment and now <br />they have a tool to conduct that analysis. Ralph noted that this is only one tool and is not the <br />only method for evaluation. <br />Ralph encouraged the Ad Hoc group to meet as soon as possible so input could be provided back <br />to the EIS Team. It was suggested that the Ad Hoc group look at and discuss the calibration and <br />sensitivity analysis as well as to see examples of how alternatives were analyzed. <br />The FWS is reviewing a working draft of the Whooping Crane Model and is not sure if the <br />revised model would be available for use in the analysis for the draft EIS and Biological <br />Opinion. If the revised model is unavailable they will use the old model for draft EIS and draft <br />Biological Opinion and the revised model for the final reviews. Paul Tebbel noted that the TC <br />has funds available to peer review the whooping crane model or other models as directed by the <br />GC. <br />Subcommittee Reports <br />Water Management Committee <br />John Lawson, WMC Chair, reported that the WMC feel they have completed their Cooperative <br />Agreement tasks and they have now moved on to discussing the future roll of the Program's <br />water committee. The WMC is utilizing Attachment III in the Cooperative Agreement for <br />guidance. In the attachment there are 17 tasks identified and the WMC feels that many of these <br />need to be accomplished by full -time staff during the Program and not the water committee. <br />Other tasks have been taken off the WMC list and given to the Water Action Plan Committee <br />(WAPC), and John noted that no discussion have occurred regarding whether there will be a <br />WAPC during the Program. The WMC will bring forward the role they see a water committee <br />playing in the Program. John noted that there was consensus that a water advisory committee <br />and not a management committee was appropriate for the Program. <br />The WMC discussed three tasks assigned to them by the Drafting Committee. The first was the <br />topic of water verification. John indicated that the WMC was unsure what this means, <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 3 of 8 <br />