Laserfiche WebLink
Adjourn for April 24 at approximately 6:40 p.m. <br />Call to Order for April 25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. <br />R3 -1 Document Review Schedule <br />Paul Tebbel reported that discussions held since the TC meeting adjourned April 25 resulted in <br />more time being allowed for comment /review of the R3 -1 Document. Mark Butler noted that <br />discussions are needed with the GC to determine what the process will be when considering <br />completion of milestone R3 -1. Mark explained that the R3 -1 Document currently evaluates the <br />mitigation measures outlined in the Cooperative Agreement for the first increment and does not <br />look towards what should be done and /or evaluated in subsequent increments. The document <br />will need to be edited to clarify these uses. This section will be added and transmitted via email <br />to the TC for inclusion in their review. <br />The TC agreed there would only be one comment period and not a further review after revision % <br />of the document. The TC agreed comments would be submitted to the Executive Director's <br />office for consolidation by May 19th. The Executive Director's office will distribute a <br />consolidated comment to the TC for review by May 26. The TC will discuss the consolidated <br />letter at their May 31— June 1 meeting. The letter will be officially submitted to the FWS by <br />June 9. This consolidated letter will be considered a TC document without FWS input (i.e., the <br />FWS will not participate in development and editing of the letter). The FWS anticipated <br />providing the revised R3 -1 Document to the GC before their June meeting. The FWS agreed to <br />respond to all comments before the document is distributed to the GC. Depending on the number <br />of comments this could result in a delay in presentation to the GC of one month. <br />Concept Sampling Plan (continued) <br />Dale briefly discussed the basic premise of the proposed sampling plan. Dale noted that the plan <br />results in a systematic probability based sampling of a large number of potential sites. Some of <br />these potential sites may never be visited, some will have minimal data collection, and others <br />will have significant data collection associated with them. The type and amount of data collected <br />and number sites visited will depend on funding as well as other variables. There was a <br />discussion on what impacts the plan would have on power analysis and confidence intervals. <br />Lyman McDonald noted that this type of plan will allow inference to the entire river with equal <br />weight give to each sampled section. The TC did not have any immediate concern with the <br />concept sampling plan and suggested that it be used as the basis for further work on protocols. <br />The TC will proceed in developing monitoring and research protocols based on the proposed <br />sampling plan. <br />Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research <br />Dale explained that the Finance Committee (FC) conditionally approved the TC monitoring and <br />research proposal to be conducted at NPPD's Cottonwood Ranch Property (CWRP). The <br />conditions of the approval were 1) the design of the demonstration project (i.e., the study <br />protocol) would be a consensus product of the TC, 2) that the full TC would be involved in the <br />development of the study design, 3) that the TC would put a system of checks and balances in <br />place to insure that the goals of the approved project are meet by the study design, and 4) that the <br />FC would be kept informed on these checks an balances. Dale explained the tight time <br />constraints in getting protocols developed and approved before management activities begin later <br />this summer. Dale went through a possible process for developing the first draft protocol. A <br />This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different if <br />corrections are made by the committee before approval. <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />