Laserfiche WebLink
Randy and many others noted that both projects had important information to be gained from <br />them and that both would be worth while projects. Some members expressed the concern that <br />the project specific to Cottonwood Ranch was a time - sensitive project and if actions were not <br />taken the opportunity would be lost. Costs would make conducting both projects as <br />demonstrations during the Cooperative Agreement unfeasible. <br />Dale noted that the Finance Committee is interested in projects that take advantage of other <br />sources of funding outside of the Cooperative Agreement /proposed Program. Because of this, he <br />felt that they would likely favor the project conducted on Cottonwood Ranch because NPPD <br />would be conducting the management and the Cooperative Agreement would probably be <br />responsible for conducting the management at a sight off of Cottonwood Ranch. This would <br />lower the overall cost of the demonstration project to the Cooperative Agreement. <br />After further discussion regarding each of the projects, Paul Tebbel noted that the majority <br />seemed to agree with pursuing the research demonstration project Randy Parker described for <br />Cottonwood Ranch. There were no objections. The TC will develop a proposal for this project <br />and take it to the Finance Committee. The small group will draft the proposal and distribute to <br />the TC by February 10. The TC will have until February 14 to review the proposal and then the <br />proposal will be sent to the Finance Committee by February 16. During this time NPPD and <br />USGS will determine how much of the work could be conducted within their current budgets. <br />Any work done by a contractor will need to go out for bid. <br />Protocols <br />Dale Strickland updated the TC on the status of the proposal to have the Executive Director's <br />office assist the TC in developing the first monitoring protocols. Dale noted that the DOI had <br />concerns regarding the Executive Director's scope of work and that the concerns had been <br />addressed. The Finance Committee has approved the pre - proposal and now the TC needs to <br />submit the full proposal. A draft proposal was distributed. Dale noted that the proposal should <br />be revised to include information on drafting the protocols such that they can be used in the <br />Cottonwood Ranch demonstration project as well as for the overall monitoring program. There <br />was some discussion on waiting on developing the protocols until the FWS distributes the R3 -1 <br />Document to insure that time is not wasted on protocols that are not needed. It was decided to <br />proceed with submitting the proposal to the Finance Committee now instead of waiting. <br />Comments on the proposal should be sent to the Executive Director's office by February 10. <br />The Executive Director's office will make any changes to the proposal and Paul will present the <br />proposal to the Finance Committee at their February meeting. <br />Integrated Monitoring and Research Component <br />Dale described the process that was used for revising the IMRC based on comments from the GC <br />and others. There was discussion to clarify a comment from the DOI related to "clearly stating <br />and fully discussing questions for monitoring and research." Sharon Whitmore noted that the <br />current draft helps explain most of DOI's concerns. Many individuals said that they were <br />satisfied with the current level of detail but that more thought would be needed when the R3 -1 <br />Document is distributed. Further work will be needed on the IMRC and budget to include <br />information from the R3 -1 Document as well as the budget ceiling set by the Finance <br />Committee. <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />