My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Draft PRRIP GC Minutes March 2014
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Draft PRRIP GC Minutes March 2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 9:57:58 AM
Creation date
1/14/2015 8:45:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Draft PRRIP GC Minutes March 2014
State
CO
NE
WY
Basin
North Platte
South Platte
Date
5/10/2014
Author
PRRIP ED Office
Title
Draft PRRIP GC Minutes March 2014
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
PRRIP—ED OFFICE DRAFT 05/10/2014 <br /> 136 PRRIP FY14 Budget Update <br /> 137 Kenny discussed the status of the FY14 PRRIP budget and associated expenditures and contracts. Barels <br /> 138 asked about income and whether that money is available to be used for Program expenditures. Kenny <br /> 139 said the money goes to the LIHE and then periodically the money is dispersed back to the NCF into the <br /> 140 account in the proportions we are shooting for. It comes back into the account and adds to the money that <br /> 141 is available. LaBonde asked where these numbers show up in the monthly financial status report. Kenny <br /> 142 said it is cumulative number with interest and that is shown on the report. <br /> 143 <br /> 144 Kenny discussed the sole source justification for the COHYST modeling contract. <br /> 145 <br /> 146 Ament moved to approve the sole source request; Heaston seconded. The Downstream Water Users <br /> 147 abstained from voting on the motion. Kenny noted a change in the contract language from "water <br /> 148 services"to"professional services". Sole source approved. <br /> 149 <br /> 150 2013 State of the Platte Report <br /> 151 Smith discussed the 2013 State of the Platte Report. Miller said the DWU wondered about whether this <br /> 152 was a GC document or an EDO document to the GC. That is clarified within the text but it needs to be <br /> 153 clarified on cover that this is written by the EDO and presented to GC. Miller used the example of the <br /> 154 ISAC report cover page as a good way to present that. Smith said that change would be made in future <br /> 155 reports. Czaplewski said there is some concern the GC Q&A sections are actually GC responses instead <br /> 156 of EDO responses to possible GC questions. Smith said that would be clarified in future reports. Bards <br /> 157 asked about the AMP and Big Questions and whether we can find a way to track whether we are <br /> 158 addressing all the AMP priority hypotheses to make sure we haven't missed anything. Smith said the <br /> 159 EDO will think about how to address that in future reports. Kraus pointed to page 24 and said to make <br /> 160 sure on charts to be clear about what they are saying. For example, it would be good to clarify the graphs <br /> 161 accompanying Big Question#6 more clearly show the trend is driven by sandpit nesting. <br /> 162 <br /> 163 LaBonde said additional GC comments are welcome for the next month to help the EDO address any <br /> 164 other issues in the 2014 report that is now underway. <br /> 165 <br /> 166 PRRIP Peer Review&Manuscript Development <br /> 167 Smith discussed the latest version of the proposed schedule and process for Program peer review and <br /> 168 manuscript development in 2014. Sellers said she sent an email to the TAC that Colorado's view is any <br /> 169 publications pursued should be targeted and strategic. For the first step of the manuscript development <br /> 170 process, it is good to build possible publications into the budget process but the starting point should be <br /> 171 the ISAC process as a "litmus test" for deciding whether something is ready for potential publication. <br /> 172 Sellers recommends adding a "b" that shows documents will run through the ISAC framework and then <br /> 173 have the TAC bless which manuscripts the EDO works on. The EDO should run the manuscripts being <br /> 174 drafted now through the ISAC framework to help explain the purpose for publication. Sellers is not too <br /> 175 excited about seeing the stage change study published and would prefer to see a shorter list of potential <br /> 176 publications for this year. LaBonde asked why Colorado does not want to see the stage change study <br /> 177 published. Sellers said it has already been peer reviewed and it is not clear what the additional benefit of <br /> 178 publishing that document. Hines said there were still lingering questions that need answered even after <br /> 179 the peer review. The Service may see the value of publishing a little differently, so Hines agrees a good <br /> 180 first step is to take potential manuscripts through the ISAC framework and go from there. <br /> 181 <br /> PRRIP March 11-12,2014 GC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.