Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 1:25 p.m. on June 20 and welcomed the group. Paul noted slight modifications to the agenda. The draft May 31-June1 meeting minutes were amended to clarify the discussion regarding the Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Protocol. The minutes were accepted as revised by consensus.

Status Reports

Governance Committee

Paul Tebbel and Dale Strickland updated the Technical Committee (TC) on discussions from the last Governance Committee (GC) meeting. Dale reported that items discussed included the draft Land Advisory Committee charter, state future depletion plans, Sediment/ Vegetation Model, and the drafting of the program documents and identification of attachments to the documents. Dale also noted that Jeff Lucas, Lynx Spatial Technology, had completed the GIS project for the basic sampling plan for the river and for use in the Cottonwood Ranch Demonstration Project. Also, the EIS Team made a presentation to the Water Management Committee on the South Platte River Model to be used in the EIS alternatives analysis.

Baseline

Mark Butler explained that representatives from FWS and BOR have gone through the existing Woodward-Clyde document and noted missing information and sections. The group then made assignments to individuals to provide the information and sections for inclusion in the document. The next draft will hopefully be distributed by August 1. Mark reported that large portions to be added include summarizing the GIS analysis, water quality, and sediment report. Mark reported that Bob Simon, Simon and Associates, is clearing up some final comments from Paul Currier's review of the sediment report and that the sediment section will be done soon. The water quality section is nearly complete and will be distributed to the TC through the Executive Director's office soon. Mark stated that there are some variables that can be used as quantitative baseline (e.g., historic flows, GIS). However the group found that there is not a lot of information that can serve as a quantitative baseline and that all parties need to agree what the bottomline data needs are and what information is needed for the baseline. Mark suggested that the first year of the Program might be used as the baseline so all parties are in agreement with the measurements.

The group will "clean-up" the existing document and define a list of variables possibly suitable as quantitative baseline information. The entire document can serve as a compendium of information related to the Platte River, but will not serve as the baseline for the Program. Mark indicated that the TC will need to come to agreement with the variables that have sufficient data to serve as the baseline. If sufficient data do not exist, then the early part of the Program may be used to collect data suitable as a quantitative baseline.

Concern was raised as to how comments from the TC and John Nickum's review would be incorporated and if the parties will be asked to sign onto a Program before baseline establishment and peer review. Concern was also raised that this may not be the direction that the GC and others want to proceed and that it maybe should be presented to them for consideration. A third concern was that some believed that a set of mitigation measures was to be implemented to address a set of problems with the river and that a baseline was to be used to measure progress. Dale noted that the idea presented (i.e., identification of existing quantitative data and then collection of new data where needed) was what he thought the TC wanted and that some might be expecting too much from R1-1. Some of the TC noted that they could understand the lack of baseline information and the need to gather the information early in the process as a scientist but suggested that the issue be addressed by the GC to insure that the TC is headed in the correct direction.

Paul Tebbel asked if not having a complete baseline affects protocol development. Lyman McDonald responded that it is good if you can look at a baseline, but this is generally not the case and it is best to move forward with good sampling to obtain quantitative data. Dale also responded that if baseline information exists it is necessary to know what methods were used to collect the data so that future data collections can follow the same methods. John Nickum noted that some of the literature used in the Woodward-Clyde document likely has methods described and others do not. Rick Brown noted that there is the need to clearly define how R1-1 will be used in R3-1.

Jim Jenniges asked for further clarification regarding the sediment report discussions between Bob Simon and Paul Currier. Mark Butler noted that Paul was reviewing the document because his information was used and that he did not know what the history is other than that as to why the parties are talking.

Habitat Protection Planning Task Force

Mark Czaplewski noted that the Task Force met June 12 to start fleshing out the detailed draft Habitat Protection Plan outline. All of the items in the outline were assigned to various Task Force members for addition of details. The next meeting is planned for July 26 in Kearney.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Protocol

Randy Parker used a series of overheads to discuss the monitoring and research protocol. Randy explained that a set of 10 spatially intensive transects will be placed above the managed area, 20 within the managed area, and 20 below the managed area. There are also 5 transects between Cottonwood Ranch and the Kearney Diversion structure. The project is designed to look at the effects of the management activities on the geomorphology of the river and not specifically one species. Regarding monitoring, Randy explained that the 5 downstream transects can easily be located on the 1/4 mile points established down the centerline (they currently were subjectively placed) and then one transect can be selected within each cluster of research transects to serve as a monitoring transect. Randy estimated that it would cost $2,500/transect for the 5 transects below Cottonwood Ranch.

Dale asked if the TC and GC are interested in knowing what is going on within the entire Cottonwood Ranch property. If not, then the design as proposed is fine. If parties are interested in characterizing the property then modifications are needed. Lyman McDonald outlined three possible options; 1) continue with the existing design, 2) utilize the existing research design (i.e., three spatially intensive locations) but move the eight monitoring transects so they are systematically aligned with the overall long-term Program monitoring, and 3) design a project with several monitoring transects on Cottonwood Ranch that encompass all channels as well as upland habitat. All get at defining cost estimates, protocol development, and protocol changes for long-term monitoring. Dale noted that the Finance Committee is expecting a project that includes both monitoring and research as proposed by the TC, so the protocol needs to clearly state how the monitoring and research are related.

Randy cautioned that with systematically placing transects you will encounter physical problems with the river, such as a transect crossing over fairly large islands. If this happens, it will not be possible to relate variables such as flow, sediment, and width measurements in separately measured channels to those done where the channel is not split. Lyman noted that Program participants will likely want to know what happens at islands downstream of management and thus monitoring should not shy away from these areas.

Jim Jenniges cautioned that conducting measurements on long transects similar to past BOR activities is expensive and that this project was supposed to focus on the geomorphic processes and not characterize the entire property. It was suggested that this project could establish the long-term monitoring transects but only channel information will be collected during the 3-year project. Lyman suggested that the long-term monitoring transects be established systematically 1 per mile electronically on maps so that all understand that the transects cross not only the main channel but also smaller channels and upland areas. Aerial photos could be used to collect information on these other areas (e.g., channel widths, vegetation changes over time). Randy said that his crew might be able to collect some channel data outside the main channel when they are in the field.

Some TC members expressed concern that without knowing what the system level monitoring is, it is difficult in fully understand how this project fits into that scheme. If more was known regarding the system monitoring, the Finance Committee may not be willing to spend this amount of money given the overall limited budget. Dale reminded the group of the level of importance that sediment/geomorphology is becoming through the IMRC, sediment/vegetation model, and R3-1 Document. Many felt that this was a good expenditure of funds and that questions need to be answered regarding restoration activities such as clearing of vegetation on Cottonwood Ranch the first and one the largest block of Program lands. This may also influence activities on future Program lands.

Randy briefly went over the proposed schedule and indicated that actual fieldwork (i.e., expenditure of Cooperative Agreement funds) is likely to begin in August. With this schedule, Dale explained that the TC needs to provide a consensus protocol to the Finance Committee in early August for them to authorize Randy to proceed. Dale asked that if anybody or organization has concerns that they be brought forward at this TC meeting, if not Randy will proceed on his current course given the direction from the TC. No further concerns were raised. The TC will work through email as much as possible in developing consensus on the protocol.

General Program Monitoring Protocol

Shay Howlin reported that the FWS had given her permission to contact Woodward-Clyde directly for information related to information and methods described in the Existing Conditions Document. It was noted that the R3-1/IMRC issues need resolution before prioritization of protocols. Dale noted that after these meetings his office would look at the priority list and suggest any changes if needed.

Aerial Photography Proposal/Protocol

Jim Jenniges circulated a draft protocol that he developed describing the use of alternating annually between color infrared (CIR) and black and white photos during the Program. Dale explained that in response to the pre-proposal submitted to them several months ago the Finance Committee asked the TC to include more justification and rationale for aerial photos and how they fit with Program monitoring. Jim noted that he had contacted Horizon for a cost estimate for the various photos, but they had not provided the estimates yet. It was also noted that photo-rectification appears to not be needed in all cases and this will lower the cost. The protocol suggests conducting CIR orthophotography at the end of the first increment to compare against the 1998 CIR orthophotos. The annual CIR or black and white photos will be used for as many monitoring variables as possible (e.g., bar movement, channel width, vegetation changes). The TC asked that more justification be added for conducting some form of aerial photography on an annual basis. There was general agreement with the concepts. All comments are due to Jim by July 14. Jim will revise for distribution to the Finance Committee before their next meeting.

R3-1 Document

Before adjournment, Sharon Whitmore distributed a revised R3-1 with FWS rationale information, Suitable Habitat Document, and a series of tables comparing R3-1 data needs to the IMRC.

Adjourn for June 20 at 6:10 p.m.

Call to Order for June 21 at 8:35 a.m.

R3-1 Document (continued)

Dale said that the R3-1 product and Suitable Habitat Document distributed on June 20 still contained the FWS's rationale and was the result of comments received and discussion at the May 31 TC meeting and was for attachment to the minutes (see attachment). Individual TC participant comments on the R3-1 Document were attached to the May minutes. All parties agreed that the official R3-1 Document would be the data needs and time frame (i.e., mainly the tables from the existing document). Concern was raised because the product distributed on June 20 had in the title that it was for "Fulfillment of Milestone R3-1" and that this may lead to confusion during the Program as to which document actually constituted R3-1. Mark Butler noted that the tables would be used to fulfill milestone R3-1 and could be used in the IMRC if the TC decides.

Mark Peyton asked how comments specific to the data needs tables were addressed. Sharon Whitmore responded that the comments were used in redrafting the tables. Paul Tebbel noted that the TC needs to review the current R3-1 Document to see if comments were addressed satisfactorily, and if not the same comments will need to be presented again during the review of this draft. Mark Butler reiterated that the "Evaluation of Effects of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (In Fulfillment of Milestone R3-1 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" dated June 16, 2000 is not the R3-1 Document and is only a FWS document. The TC will not be asked to accept this document or the FWS background. There was discussion regarding if the TC needs to review the R3-1 Document (data needs and time frame) before the FWS presents it to the GC. Dale suggested that it would be easier if it had TC consensus or if the FWS presented it as a document under review by the FWS and TC for inclusion in the IMRC.

Kevin Urie recognized that the TC had agreed that the R3-1 Document was to be the data needs and time frame for determining biological response, but some of his constituents may have concerns because "procedures" were not included. Kevin suggested adding wording to explain how the documents and information will be used to evaluate the Program at the end of the first increment (e.g., baseline, R3-1, IMRC). Rick Brown suggested including some sort of introduction to the data needs tables that discusses the process that was used as well as an explanation that milestone R3-1 contains confusing wording, how R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1 will be combined for evaluation, and that there were differences identified that could not be resolved. There was consensus that FWS could present the data needs and time frame tables with an introduction to the GC for consideration. Sharon Whitmore asked that those with suggestions for the introduction provide them to her for inclusion.

Relationship of R1-1, R2-1, R3-1 and IMRC

Sharon Whitmore distributed and discussed a work product that she was assigned to address at the last TC meeting. She and several other FWS personnel investigated the data needs identified in R3-1 and compared those to the protocols identified in the IMRC. They attempted to determine if R3-1 data needs were covered by IMRC protocols and if baseline information existed for those topics. Sharon noted that this is only a draft and should not be seen as a FWS document. Sharon also noted that there was some questions regarding several IMRC protocols and what was to be collected. Dale reminded the TC that the GC and Finance Committee are concerned with the budget and he has been telling them that the TC can not provide a better estimate until the R3-1 is complete and it is compared to the IMRC. The FWS has taken the first cut at this comparison. The TC spent some time reviewing the work product to see if there were any data needs from the R3-1 that were not covered by the IMRC. It was understood that many of the details need to be worked out during protocol development.

Several suggestions were made. One suggestion was that the FWS clearly go over pallid sturgeon data needs. Phil Ogle noted that some IMRC protocols will be applied to several species and that this should be put in the table for each corresponding location and not just under "general". It was also suggested that a note be put in the table in spots where the FWS feels the IMRC protocols are important but covered elsewhere in the work product so they are not eliminated by the Finance Committee. There was general agreement that the IMRC covered all data needs identified in the R3-1. Sharon was to check with Dave Felley to insure that all R3-1 data needs were included in the work product. Comments on the document are due to Sharon by July 7. Sharon will redraft in redline before the next meeting.

Other factors identified that will effect the Program's monitoring and research budget include unique research that arises, peer review, and experts on the Program's technical committee.

Technical Committee Budget

Paul and Dale reported that the TC's budget for July 1-December 31, 2000 is $392,000. This is to cover the Cottonwood Ranch demonstration project, peer review, and protocol development.

Program Products

Adaptive Management Chapter

Sharon will have drafted and to the TC one week before the next meeting.

Charter

Paul distributed a draft charter June 20 for review. Concern was raised that downstream water users, Wyoming water users, Colorado water users, NGPC, and Natural Resource Districts were not represented on the membership. Sharon Whitmore noted that the TC needs to identify what functions a technical committee will serve during the Program before a charter can be completed. The TC also discussed the use of independent scientists on the technical committee. Mark Butler noted that if the TC is going to suggest going outside the current GC membership that they should insure that the GC is comfortable with that. Comments on the charter are due to Paul Tebbel by July 14.

Peer Review Work Plan

Mark Czaplewski and Kevin Urie distributed a draft Work Plan on June 20 for review. Sharon asked how the Work Plan would fit into the Program. Mark explained that the he and Kevin saw the Program's Work Plan functioning similar to the Cooperative Agreement Work Plan in that it would allow the GC to plan for budgets, time, and tasks as related to peer review. Dale noted that it would likely be a 'living' document, but that the Program Drafting Committee had asked for it as a work product. Comments on the Work Plan are due to Mark and Kevin by July 14.

Drafting Committee Letter

Paul asked that TC members provide comments on Program documents through their GC representatives rather than through the TC. Paul said that he would be providing a verbal report at the next GC meeting on progress.

Future Meeting

1 p.m. - 6 p.m. CDT July 25 and 8 a.m. - 2 p.m. MDT July 26. Trust Facility, Alda, NE.

NOTE: At the June 29 Governance Committee meeting the date was changed to August 1-2, USBR Building 67, room 481, Federal Center, Lakewood, Colorado. Times remained the same.

Adjourn for June 1, 2000 at 12:30 p.m.