Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. on April 24 and welcomed the group. Paul noted slight modifications to the agenda. The draft January minutes were amended to better reflect the discussion related to Baseline. The minutes were accepted as revised by consensus. Introductions were made.

Status Reports

Governance Committee

Dale Strickland updated the Technical Committee (TC) on discussions and decisions resulting from Governance Committee (GC) meetings since January. Dale noted that the major discussion points have been the Water Action Plan development and proposed Program budget. The Water Action Plan has been revised several times and a May 11 conference call is planned to determine how the Plan will be presented to the EIS Team. The states will be holding public meetings in June to discuss the Plan and a final draft Water Action Plan will be presented in July. Regarding the budget, the respective committees have estimated what can be accomplished within the budget ceiling established by the Finance Committee. There has been no decision by the GC on what should be done about the apparent budget shortfalls. Dale also discussed the process that will be followed for implementing monitoring and research at Cottonwood Ranch, outcome of the Land Ownership Entity facilitated workshop, and Third Party Impacts Report.

Baseline Document

Sharon Whitmore and Mark Butler provided a report in the absence of John Nickum. It was reported that dates have not have been set for when the Baseline Document will be completed and available for review. John has reviewed the document and determined that it cannot in its entirety serve as a quantitative baseline for the Program, however, there are areas that can be used (e.g., GIS information). Some of the topics noted by John include the lack of some references and use of qualitative information. John will be providing a report outlining where there is sufficient information for a quantitative baseline and where there is not sufficient information. The Program may determine that more information is needed. This report will be included as a section in the final version. The final Baseline Document will include a revision of the current document, the sections not currently available, and John's report. A FWS working group is determining how all sections should be incorporated. Paul Tebbel asked that the "missing" sections be provided to the TC when they are available (i.e., sediment, water quality, river morphology, and GIS) and that the entire document be provided when John Nickum's report is done. Sharon said that she would coordinate with the FWS in distributing the sections. No dates have been established for this distribution. Dale noted that his office would need to work closely with John as the protocols are being drafted.

Mark Butler reported that the FWS is relying on a report being prepared by Bob Simon for the sediment and morphology sections and that report is close to being finalized. If Curt Brown agrees, the report can be distributed to the TC and others.

Concern was raised that a process needs to be in place that clearly identifies all existing baseline information the FWS will use to judge biological response before Program implementation. The final baseline document will need to clearly reference any and all pertinent quantitative information. Mark Butler noted that the R1-1 document is not for compliance, rather it represents a collection of base information. Lyman McDonald urged review of the meta data. He also cautioned that without proper documentation existing data is relatively useless.

Habitat Protection Planning Task Force

Mark Czaplewski noted that several Land Committee members have asked when the Task Force should start fleshing out the GC approved outline. The TC agreed that work should begin shortly after completion of the Habitat Management Methods document in mid-May. Mark will address the topic at the May 8 Habitat Criteria Subcommittee meeting.

R3-1 Document

Paul Tebbel introduced the topic and suggested that if the TC meets the schedule outlined by the FWS in Mark Butler's e-mail, then the minutes could be used to provide consolidated TC comments by identifying issues and concern. However, he pointed out that individual entities will also likely comment. Mark Butler described the proposed schedule in which the TC provides consolidated comments to the FWS by May 5; the FWS will review the comments and provide the document to the GC by May 19; and the GC will be asked for a decision on acceptance of the document at their May 25 meeting. Concern was raised over the very tight schedule and only recent distribution of the "Draft Target Species Suitable Habitat" document. Many felt more time was needed at the TC level for review. Dale noted that GC representatives may have problems reviewing and accepting a document with out acceptance from their technical people. The FWS views completion of R3-1 as their mandated responsibility and that they would accept comments but the final document was their determination. In the end, participating parties will need to determine if they can live with the document or if it a deal breaker.

Martha Tacha briefly described the R3-1 Document and how it relates to R2-1 and R1-1. Martha noted that the R3-1 Document discusses what issues need addressing for FWS purposes and could be used to insure development of necessary protocols through the IMRC process. The document also discusses the rationale of determining data needs. Martha discussed the process that will be used by FWS to evaluate Program benefits in complying with ESA at the end of first increment. Martha also addressed the review conducted by the FWS of the R3-1 Document and associated "Draft Target Species Suitable Habitat" and distributed a list of experts that received the document for review. Kevin Urie asked if the TC could see the comments. FWS representatives agreed TC could review comments. Requests for copies of the comments should be submitted to Clayton Derby.

Concern was raised regarding the interpretation of milestone R3-1 and how slightly different interpretations can lead to large differences in what R3-1 says and does not say. FWS described their interpretation and noted that they are focusing on the current Program's mitigation measure of offsetting target flows by 130-150 KAF and providing 10,000 acres of habitat. Concern was also raised regarding the perception that the adaptive management concept was not included in the document and that this made the document too ridged in what it evaluated. Mark Butler explained that the Program will not recover the species but will impact the species habitat. The Program should look at what habitat is there and how much, what can be done to the habitat, what are the impacts to the habitat, and what are the species response during the First Increment. Mark also asked for the TC opinion regarding what the document should evaluate. Rick Brown responded that the document should evaluate what habitat types can be constructed, how they can be constructed, and allow for a wide range of alternatives and an adequate time frame for response.

Rick noted that the Program should not be used to validate something like the whooping crane model but should benefit whooping cranes. Rick also noted that the document currently does not allow review and evaluation of things such as off-channel whooping crane roosting habitat and he felt this was a narrow interpretation of the Cooperative Agreement. The example was given that if the Program works on off-channel roosting habitat and it is found to be greatly beneficial to cranes, the Program could still be graded as a failure under the R3-1 Document because it did not affect things such as channel width, flow, etc. Mark Butler pointed out that the Program can conduct projects elsewhere if desired, but right now the FWS believes the R3-1 document should focus on mitigation measures agreed to in the CA, such as in-channel roosting for whooping cranes. Concern was also raised that the document does not refer to "valley floor" or similar wording when describing areas for possible evaluation. The point was again made that the FWS focused on the current mitigation measures only, but that the FWS did not object to the Program evaluating other factors potentially influencing target species.

Mark Czaplewski noted that milestone R4-1 calls for peer review of items developed in R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1. Mark expressed concern that the current R3-1 Document does not provide a list of literature used and asked if the FWS had any suggestions on how the TC could peer review the document in meeting their obligation in R4-1. Concern was also raised regarding how peer review would play into the TC/GC review process given the tight schedule. Dale noted that the TC Peer Review Work Plan outlines what should be peer reviewed but has not been updated within the last year. A decision will need to be made whether or not the TC believe peer review of the R3-1 Document and/or supporting materials is necessary and this decision will be forwarded to the FC/GC for approval and funding. Sharon Whitmore noted that if reviewers were asked to review just R3-1 they would be missing large portions of the monitoring and research component (i.e., R1-1, R2-1). It was noted that peer review is a very important aspect of the Program/Cooperative Agreement to the states and their constituents and was supposed to avoid some past arguments by having an independent scientific review of CA and Program products. Martha explained the review process used by FWS already on the document. Lyman McDonald cautioned that serious consideration be given to data needs before the document is elevated to the GC for review.

Concerns were raised related to the rationale used for determining data needs. Jim Jenniges noted that significant works have been written disputing the rationale and now some parties feel the FWS is asking them to buy into a Program based on the disputed information. Dale asked for clarification on how the Joint Study information (as an example) was to be used. FWS responded that Program evaluation will not be based entirely on old information (e.g., Joint Study, sed/veg model, whooping crane model) and that as new data are gathered it will also be used in evaluating the Program. The whooping crane model, as an example, can be one tool used to evaluate the Program. The intent of the R3-1 Document is to define a way information is collected such that the FWS can determine a biological response of the target species to mitigation measures during the First Increment.

The TC discussed how things such as the whooping crane model might be used by FWS. One possible method is to use models as a standard against what is produced by the Program. Another possible method is to use new empirical data to validated the model and/or build a new model. Mark Butler explained that the WMC uses an OPSTUDY model to compare actual data against. He pointed out that these comparisons are not for compliance. In the case of the WMC use of models the model is useful for predicting conditions without a Program. Other models may be used similarly. The TC asked that better clarification be given to how models would be used.

Concern was raised regarding the whooping crane model and what data are collected because the existing model assumes it is known what the needs of whooping cranes are and some parameters are not included (e.g., potential importance of off-channel roosting). FWS representatives noted that under Section 7 they need to use the best scientific evidence to determine project impacts and if the Program collects data contrary to current thinking the FWS will need to use it in their determination. It was pointed out that the R3-1 Document does not determine the intensity of data collections and this will be done during protocol development. It will ultimately be up to the Program to determine exactly what data are collected and to what extent. Phil Ogle noted that the IMRC currently covers some of the same topics as the R3-1, but there are differences.

Jim Jenniges asked what #4 (Long-range species recovery objectives) under "the evaluation process" relates to. Martha explained that the FWS is anticipating conducting workshops to develop this objective. Sharon explained that this looks at stepping down the Recovery Plans to include soft goals for the central Platte and relates back to the "X's" included in the initial Tern Document.

The group spent some time discussing what direction is given in the R3-1 Document for developing protocols related to flow and sediment studies for use in the Cottonwood Ranch monitoring and research project and the different interpretations. The FWS needs to know if the channel is agrading, degrading, or fluctuating too greatly to tell. Dale said his office would work with a small group to prepare draft protocol for TC review by the next meeting.

Concept Sampling Plan

Dale briefly explained the Concept Sampling Plan and the background used in its development and that the Plan as presented was for discussion purposes. Lyman discusses how the Plan would result in a probability based sample of the entire river and that it could be easily used to tie research and monitoring together. The Plan would allow inference to the river giving equal weight per mile of river. There was some discussion regarding the use of existing transects that do not fall on Program established lines. Lyman recommended drawing a valid probability based sample of points along the entire river. The concept plan envisioned sampling some points each year and other points at some predetermined interval. The concept plan emphasized flexibility in selecting actual sampling points through some sort of two staged sampling process. If financially possible it might be beneficial to continue monitoring some or all of the existing transects to look at local effects. The Program will want sampling to detect changes over time and the statistically valid sampling plan will allow this. Logistical problems will need to be worked out as much as possible during the iterative process of drafting and review of specific protocols.

Adjourn for April 24 at approximately 6:40 p.m.

Call to Order for April 25 at approximately 8:30 a.m.

R3-1 Document Review Schedule

Paul Tebbel reported that discussions held since the TC meeting adjourned April 25 resulted in more time being allowed for comment/review of the R3-1 Document. Mark Butler noted that discussions are needed with the GC to determine what the process will be when considering completion of milestone R3-1. Mark explained that the R3-1 Document currently evaluates the mitigation measures outlined in the Cooperative Agreement for the first increment and does not look towards what should be done and/or evaluated in subsequent increments. The document will need to be edited to clarify these uses. This section will be added and transmitted via email to the TC for inclusion in their review.

The TC agreed there would only be one comment period and not a further review after revision of the document (except potential peer review under Milestone R4-1). The TC agreed comments would be submitted to the Executive Director's office for consolidation by May 19th. The Executive Director's office will distribute a consolidated comment to the TC for review by May 26. The TC will discuss the consolidated letter at their May 31 - June 1 meeting. The letter will be officially submitted to the FWS by June 9. This consolidated letter will be considered a TC document without FWS input (i.e., the FWS will not participate in development and editing of the letter). The FWS anticipated providing the revised R3-1 Document to the GC before their June meeting. The FWS agreed to respond to all comments before the document is distributed to the GC. Depending on the number of comments this could result in a delay in presentation to the GC of one month.

Concept Sampling Plan (continued)

Dale briefly discussed the basic premise of the proposed sampling plan. Dale noted that the plan results in a systematic probability based sampling of a large number of potential sites. Some of these potential sites may never be visited, some will have minimal data collection, and others will have significant data collection associated with them. The type and amount of data collected and number sites visited will depend on funding as well as other variables. There was a discussion on what impacts the plan would have on power analysis and confidence intervals. Lyman McDonald noted that this type of plan will allow inference to the entire river with equal weight give to each sampled section. The TC did not have any immediate concern with the concept sampling plan and suggested that it be used as the basis for further work on protocols. The TC will proceed in developing monitoring and research protocols based on the proposed sampling plan.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research

Dale explained that the Finance Committee (FC) conditionally approved the TC monitoring and research proposal to be conducted at NPPD's Cottonwood Ranch Property (CWRP). The conditions of the approval were 1) the design of the demonstration project (i.e., the study protocol) would be a consensus product of the TC, 2) that the full TC would be involved in the development of the study design, 3) that the TC would put a system of checks and balances in place to insure that the goals of the approved project are meet by the study design, and 4) that the FC would be kept informed on these checks an balances. Dale explained the tight time constraints in getting protocols developed and approved before management activities begin later this summer. Dale went through a possible process for developing the first draft protocol. A subgroup of Jim Jenniges, Randy Parker, Kenny Dinan and members of the Executive Director's office would meet to determine if changes are needed in the management plan and if they are possible before development of protocols. The working group will prepare draft protocols and they will be distributed to the entire TC for review and comment. A TC consensus on the protocols will be needed before their implementation.

There was general discussion regarding potential design issues and how the physical lay out of CWRP will impact monitoring and research design, including a discussion of the need to design the project such that the control section is the least likely to be impacted by the treatment. Jim Jenniges noted that NPPD will need a minimum of 60 days notification if the management plan is altered because of contract letting restraints. The TC will attempt to have a final protocol developed by July 1, 2000 for implementation at Cottonwood Ranch. The TC will be include by cc on all correspondence for informational purposes.

Aerial Photography

Sharon Whitmore updated the TC on efforts to develop a proposal to conduct aerial surveys for the Cooperative Agreement/Proposed Program. Sharon noted that the TC needs to decide what types of photos are needed and who would write the proposal. Dale outlined some of the basic questions that need to be answered before a decision was made on type of photography (e.g., when, flow requirements, anticipate use of photos). Mike Pucherelli, USBR, noted that it is generally a good investment to take some type of photography every year in a long term project such as this but a particular reason should be identified. Allen Bell, USBR, described what was done in 1998 and how the photos were ortho-rectified. Allen noted that there was a contract to conduct large scale photography with one-foot contour intervals at eight sites along the central Platte for the purpose of starting the Program's long-term monitoring. This contract was never carried out because of flow conditions. There was general discussion related to the merits of large scale, high intensity photography as well as small scale general photography. There was discussion related to ways to reduce overall costs associated with aerial photography and included using an initial scale of 1:40,000 and rectifying to 1:12,000. Concerns were raised related to the need to conduct photography this year versus waiting a year. It was decided that Sharon Whitmore would continue to coordinate proposal development using input from other TC members. A pre-proposal outlining a similar photo effort as that conducted in 1998 will be provided to for FC consideration at their May meeting. A final proposal will be done for the June FC meeting. This will also be useful in developing the overall aerial photography scheme for the Program that may entail both a small scale and large scale component.

Other Business

The TC will need to revisit the seven protocols outlined for first consideration in the proposal approved by the FC and determine if these are still the protocols of primary importance given the R3-1 Document. The TC will also need to revise the monitoring and research estimated budget given the tasks outlined in the R3-1 Document. These will be topics at the May 31 - June 1 meeting

Future Meetings

1-6 p.m. May 31st and 8 a.m.-2 p.m. June 1st, Cheyenne, location TBD

Adjourn for April 25, 2000 at 12:00 p.m.