Final Minutes
Governance Committee/Technical Committee Workshop

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and gave a brief introduction. Paul noted that Dale Strickland would be leading the discussion. Ralph Morgenweck asked that the discussion be used to describe exactly what the Governance Committee (GC) will need to decide in May for monitoring and research.

Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan

Dale used a series of overheads to outline the purpose of the workshop and to discuss the Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan (IMRP) (see attached). The IMRP is a design based monitoring/research plan that relies on a combination of aerial photography, ground studies, and historic information for data collection, and statistical and computer models for data analysis. Dale noted that currently the IMRP includes sections or placeholders for compliance monitoring, biological response monitoring, adaptive management, and baseline. The TC would like feedback from the GC on whether all of these sections are appropriate for the IMRP or if other sections should be added.

Dale used a flow chart to discuss how the different types of adaptive management (project level and Program or system-level) are currently addressed in the IMRP. It is the TC's understanding that there will be, at a minimum, adaptive management during the First Increment for management activities (e.g., what method of tree clearing works best) and specific projects (e.g., the management of a specific tract of land) to insure that proper activities are being conducted. There is less certainty on the committee's part regarding whether Program objectives of 10,000 acres and 130,000-150,000 acre-feet are subject to adaptive management during the first increment. However, he indicated that the TC assumed that these Program objectives would be subject to adaptive management at the end of the first increment, resulting in new objectives for the second increment. There was some confusion regarding what the "Program Management" box in the chart was depicting and Dale suggested that the box should be re-labeled "Program Objectives" to more accurately reflect that it refers to the 10,000 acres and 130,000-150,000 acre-feet components of the Program. The group agreed more time should be spent discussing adaptive management after Dale's presentation.

During the presentation the group discussed how models could be used. Lyman McDonald stated that decisions are usually made based on a variety of information from monitoring and research. With research it is possible to address cause and affect between specific experimental treatments and biological response. However, system level changes (i.e., changes in the entire area between Lexington and Chapman) and project level changes (e.g., NPPD's Cottonwood Ranch) are confounded by many different factors (e.g. program management, other management activities, weather). System and project level monitoring may detect changes, but determining the cause of the change may be difficult. Determining the cause of change will become easier with more monitoring data collected over a longer period of time. Lyman stated that it typically takes 15-20 years of monitoring data to detect trends/changes environmentally. Concern was raised that the Program will have <13 years of complete Program monitoring and this will likely confound the problem of detecting changes and determining cause/affect. Lyman pointed out that all of the monitoring and research information could be used in statistical and computer models. The Program will need to participate in constructing models that can be used to evaluate the relationship between species and habitat changes and program activities and other factors in the environment (e.g., weather) and to simulate what could happen in the future with different weather, management, etc.

Basic Sampling Design in IMRP

Shay Howlin, Executive Director's Office, used a series of overheads to discuss the basic sampling designed employed in the IMRP, as well as the characteristics of monitoring vs. research (see attachment). The IMRP ties monitoring data collection to a series of anchor points distributed systematically, with a random starting point, between Lexington and Chapman. The design is flexible and allows the measurement of different variables at different times, and intensities throughout the system without losing the basic sampling approach.

One of the overheads depicted how a regression line can be fit to raw data to indicate trend. It was noted that such an analysis only indicated whether change has occurred or not, and does not determine the cause or the affect of the change. The Program will need to use all information (weather, research, etc.) to get to the point of making a judgment on the Program's effectiveness. Concern was raised that this may lead to the Program being measured and evaluated against items that they cannot control. The Program will need to collect information on lots of variables to get a weight of evidence for evaluating the Program. It was noted that this shows that the Program cannot short the monitoring and research budget.

Lyman McDonald noted that the Program will be able to reach a certain point with statistical analysis, but then the TC and GC will need to make informed decisions and use models to fully evaluate the Program or decide on cause and effect relationships. It will also be important to utilize GIS over the entire area to look at what is happening throughout the system. It will be important for the Program to collect data and information on important variables on both Program and non-Program Lands.

During the discussion it was stated that the TC is currently operating with the assumption that focused research is needed to determine cause and affect relationships. It was noted that the TC should consider using different types of analysis in the protocols for determining cause and affect from observational studies (e.g. multi-factorial). Lyman discussed how multiple-regression and other multivariate analysis techniques can be used in analysis of Program data (e.g. ordination can sometimes be very useful in determining causation), generally though, none of these types of analyses carry the weight of an designed experiment for determining cause and effect. The IMRP is design to allow different types of statistical and model based analysis.

Policy Issues

Relationship of IMRP in Program Document

The GC confirmed that the IMRP would be an attachment in the Program document.

Compliance Monitoring

It was explained that originally the IMRP was developed to just address biological response monitoring and research. However, the TC had identified the need for a placeholder for compliance monitoring either in the IMRP or elsewhere. The TC needs clarification on whether the IMRP should include compliance monitoring.

Ralph Morgenweck and others stated that compliance monitoring is different than biological response monitoring, and that it should be a separate item in the Program. Compliance will be meeting the First Increment Milestones and that actions such as protecting land, Pathfinder modification, etc. are tasks for meeting the milestones. The Program will not be judged on results of biological response during the First Increment. It was suggested that a checklist with these tasks could be developed. Some type of monitoring or tracking will be needed to insure that RPA requirements are being met. The Governance Committee agreed that compliance monitoring is not a topic for inclusion in the IMRP.

Concern was raised that if everything becomes a separate item in the program document, it will be difficult for each part to relate to the entire Program, and areas can contradict. It was suggested that the chart presented by Dale earlier is very helpful and should be included in the Program document. It was suggested that the Drafting Committee develop and distribute a draft outline or table of contents of what the Program document might look like.

Adaptive Management

The group discussed where the issue of adaptive management should be addressed in the Program document. It was noted that the TC currently understands how adaptive management will work for biological response. Many felt that another level of adaptive management for the Program needs to be explained within the Program document. The GC agreed that the Drafting Committee should work with technical representatives to draft an "umbrella" or policy level adaptive management section for the Program that is based on what the TC has done to date (i.e., how adaptive management in general will work within the Program). The TC will continue to develop the adaptive management section for biological response. The GC needs to be kept up to speed on the details to insure all groups are heading in the correct direction. John Lawson pointed out that the Water Management Committee had not addressed adaptive management to date. All groups developing adaptive management sections need to clearly list what management actions are being evaluated and what monitoring and research activities are necessary to help insure all items are included.

What Can/Cannot Change During First Increment

Dale gave a couple of examples of possible items for consideration - can management on a specific tract of land change, can the 10,000 acre objective for the first increment change? There was a discussion regarding why the TC needs to know what can and cannot change during the First Increment. Jim Jenniges gave the example that some people believe that the definition of habitat in the Joint Management Study cannot change (i.e., islands so large and so high), but then Jim went on to explain that this has already changed due to the work conducted by the Districts. It was noted that guidance would be given when the LAC, TC, and staff bring management plans forward. It will be hard to define all issues and sideboards before the Program begins.

It was noted that likely anything could be changed, including the 10,000 acres and 130,000-150,000 acre-feet objectives, with the proper authority. The Drafting Committee is currently seeking clarification on whether or not the GC will have authority to modify milestones during the First Increment.

Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC)

Dale explained during the discussion of a charter for the Technical entity for the Program the need for an additional, independent SAC was discussed. He noted that there was disagreement over whether a SAC was needed and if needed, what its relationship with the TC and GC might be. Dale described the various potential functions of a SAC. The TC assumes there will be a Program TC. The current TC is waiting on issues such as staff needs, SAC, etc before drafting a Program TC charter. The SAC would be used during the Program if there were substantial issues that could not be resolved by the TC.

Concern was raised that with the formation of a standing SAC, the Program TC would not need to struggle through difficult issues. Currently, with all parties involved on the TC and GC, when an issue is agreed to then there is not the need for further outside assistance. It was noted that the Program anticipated peer review of most if not all items and that this can serve as independent guidance. Also, if there were a particular issue requiring guidance, then it would be possible to hire someone for that issue, but to have a standing SAC would likely not work.

Collection of Information at Historic Transects

Dale explained that the current IMRP primarily focuses on collection of data tied to systematically placed anchor points, but also recognizes the importance of collecting information at historic sites using historic methods. Once the TC has reviewed the R1-1 baseline document they will have an idea/recommendation on what should be carried forward. GC guidance is necessary because collecting data sets at both systematically placed anchor points and historic sites significantly increases the cost of data collection. The GC agreed that collection of data at both types of sites is important and that overtime the historic sites could be phased out.

Indicators of biological response

Dale explained that he asked the FWS for their minimum data needs and that they have done this in the R3-1 Charts. This gives the Program one sideboard for the monitoring and research effort. There could be a similar chart with the entire TC's needs; but the current chart just depicts the FWS needs. The Charts depict a smaller list of data requirements than the original R3-1 Tables. There are two main differences between the current IMRP and what the R3-1 Charts indicated: 1) IMRP uses a design-based sampling plan, and the FWS needs replication of historic sites, and 2) FWS frequency of data collection (e.g., sample size) is less than identified by the IMRP. The Charts do include increased effort in two areas, data on mussels and the level of detail asked for related to pallid sturgeon.

There was acknowledgment that both historic and systematic (random) sites need to be visited during a transition period in the Program, but concern was raised that there is not a set period for this transition. Ralph explained that they are unsure of the time needed and that it likely will depend on when it can be stated with certainty that the new sites can give comparable data as the historic sites.

Concern was raised that some items in the Charts are not high on the current protocol priority list. The question was asked; if the Program does not collect this information will FWS collect the information? Ralph explained that the FWS will not collect this information and that the FWS will need to make more judgment calls at the end of the First Increment for evaluation if not all information is collected.

Concern was raised regarding the level of information the Service needs on pallid sturgeon and that this might be drifting from the main part of the Program mission. It was explained that the monitoring is for spawning habitat, not the spawning of the species and that the measurements are basic research. Ralph noted that in upper Colorado River project, they started with research for 7-9 years before management actions because they did not know a lot about the species in the beginning, similar to pallid sturgeon for the Program. There is other work being completed for pallid sturgeon and it is likely that this will have applicability to the Program's research needs.

Protocols

Dale distributed a list of protocols with estimated budgets developed by the TC. Dale explained that it is difficult to estimate costs until further information is available through protocol development (e.g., how many transects, how often are they visited). The GC is being asked to indicate what protocols to implement for the First Increment and how much money they will be willing to spend for monitoring and research during the First Increment.

The GC asked the TC to review the protocol list and insure that the FWS minimum data needs as indicated in the R3-1 Charts are included. The TC needs to also insure that the proper level of detail is included when developing protocols (e.g., is identification of forest sufficient or does the monitoring need to identify tree species.) It was noted that some budget estimates need to be updated (e.g. Whooping crane monitoring).

Ralph noted that the FWS minimum data needs list is required for the FWS to develop a solid judgment for the Program. If less data is collected the FWS will be required to make more professional judgments. If more than the minimum data is collected the decisions will be more data driven.

Dale summarized that the TC will meet and revise the table to include more detail showing FWS needs, more detail showing other needs, and update cost estimates. The GC will be provided an update at their May meeting.

Adjourn - 2:30 p.m.