Draft Minutes Technical Committee Meeting
August 1, 2000
USBR Building 67, Denver Federal Center
Lakewood, Colorado

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. on August 1 and welcomed the group. Paul noted slight modifications to the agenda. The draft June minutes were amended to clarify a meeting date. The minutes were accepted as revised by consensus. Introductions were made.

Status Reports

Governance Committee

Paul and Dale Strickland noted that no report would be given unless Technical Committee (TC) members had specific questions.

Baseline

John Nickum reported that he is hoping that the parts to be added to the Woodward-Clyde document (e.g., water quality, sediment) will contain the necessary information for a quantitative baseline. The more biological parameters (e.g., number of birds, nest information, vegetation information) already in the document consist primarily of qualitative data and the Program will likely want to start collecting quantitative baseline data early in the Program.

Habitat Protection Planning Task Force

Mark Czaplewski noted that the Task Force met July 26 and is making progress toward finalizing the Habitat Protection Plan. There was some discussion regarding review of the document and it was decided that the next drafts will be circulated to the Task Force as well as the TC and Land Committee's Habitat Criteria Subcommittee.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Protocol

Randy Parker gave a brief overview of the protocol and noted that the monitoring and research is to investigate what happens to the channels and sediment as a result of management actions. Randy also briefly went over the design described in the protocol and the differences/similarities between the monitoring and research components. Monitoring and research is anticipated to begin in late August or September. Paul Tebbel explained that the Finance Committee (FC) is ready to move forward on implementing the protocol if the TC can come to consensus. Rick Brown noted that "model-based" analysis was referenced in the protocol and that Colorado had concerns with this analysis method. It was clarified that it was a "statistical model based" analysis (e.g., multivariate analysis) that was being referenced. Randy clarified the purpose of monitoring transects and noted that the monitoring will help start the Program's monitoring and refining cost estimates and was not for cause-effect. Shay Howlin noted that UTM locations for the monitoring transects should be added and Dale Strickland suggested that reference to development of standard operating procedures (SOP) be retained and the development of the SOP should be completed where needed. The protocol was accepted as modified by consensus. The final consensus protocol will be distributed to the TC and others.

Aerial Photography Proposal

Jim Jenniges gave a brief overview of the proposal and described the process that had occurred in bringing the proposal before the FC. Sharon Whitmore expressed concern that the proposal needs to clearly state that the TC is only asking for funding to conduct black and white photography in 2000 and is not establishing the aerial photography for the entire Program. Dale Strickland reminded the TC that the FC asked for a general description of how the photos would fit into the Program's monitoring and research and that some general justification was needed in the proposal. There was TC consensus that the Program will need to take black and white photos at some interval during the Program and that 2000 photos could fit into this scheme. Comments on the draft proposal are due to the Executive Director's office by August 11. The Executive Director's office will revise the proposal and make clear that the proposal is only requesting funding for 2000 and that the justification on how photos will be used during the Program will be completely fleshed out during protocol development. The redraft will be distributed to the TC through email for comment. The proposal will be submitted to the FC for their September meeting. Dale and others urged the TC to speak with their FC representatives and describe the importance of the aerial photos before the September FC meeting.

Protocols

Shay Howlin gave an overview and update on protocol development. Shay distributed a list of points needing clarification and noted that this would facilitate protocol development. The TC discussed two methods of obtaining data related to whooping crane use areas: unbiased surveys and opportunistic reports from the public and others. The group discussed the pros and cons of each method and most agreed that the protocol must consider both methods. There was also limited discussion related to the need to define several habitat parameters for use in the Program (e.g., channel width).

The group spent considerable time discussing the area of interest (i.e., treatment area) for use in the tern and plover protocol. The TC reached consensus on the area of interest for terns and plovers during the Program as 3.5 miles either side of the centerline of the main river channel, except where a secondary channel is greater than 3.5 miles from the main-channel in which case a two-mile buffer will be used around that secondary channel. The group also discussed the effect of flow levels on conducting surveys. The protocol will need to be modified to remove reference to 'low flows' and include methods to conduct surveys if use of airboats is precluded. A final point regarding terns and plovers was the definition of a fledged bird. It was agreed that a 15 day old chick would be considered fledged and that a description of a tern and plover chick at that age was needed in the protocol.

The final protocol discussed was the General Monitoring protocol. Shay noted that depending on how vegetation data are collected, the information could be used in assessing such things as the availability of whooping crane habitat. The group discussed several potential problems with utilizing systematically placed transects throughout the river. Dale reminded the group that the cross section location was only a method to locate a position in the river and once at the point various measurements can be taken off of the transect. The TC discussed what biological parameters should be measured on the general monitoring transects. The discussion included possibly conducting breeding bird surveys, small mammal surveys, and herpetological surveys for use in describing the Programs effect on the areas animal communities. The TC did not resolve what species, if any, should be monitored on the general monitoring transects.

Technical Committee/Governance Committee Workshop Planning

Paul Tebbel and Dale Strickland described the last Governance Committee (GC) meeting and explained that the GC asked that TC meetings be rescheduled and to include a workshop. A draft agenda for the workshop was distributed and Clayton Derby described the process that was followed in establishing agenda topics. The group spent some time reviewing the agenda and discussing the topics on the agenda and others not included on the draft. During the discussion Sharon Whitmore described her progress on the adaptive management document. She suggested that a small work group be formed to address this need and suggested that this could be a topic for the workshop since it has implication outside of just the TC (e.g., water project monitoring, compliance monitoring).

There was some discussion at what point the issue of suitable habitat is discussed: either during the R1-1 (baseline) or R3-1 (data needs) sections. Some TC members were concerned that the R3-1 Document did not consider off channel habitat such as sandpits. Sharon Whitmore noted that the document and FWS do not exclude areas such as sandpits but that the focus is on in-channel habitats. It was left as a discussion point under the R3-1 milestone heading. The issues of species recovery goals, isolation, and sustainability were noted as not being included on the agenda and the agenda was revised to include these issues under the R3-1 discussion.

The TC also discussed how the topic of baseline should be presented at the workshop. Most TC members understand that only minimal quantitative data exists and agree with the approach FWS in taking in drafting the eventual baseline. The GC needs to be aware of the issues and tell the TC they are heading in the correct direction or they should be focusing efforts elsewhere. Concern was raised that the R3-1 Document refers back to a Baseline Document that all agree is insufficient and incomplete.

Several TC members mentioned that there needs to be a small group go through the issues and frame the various opinions around each issue before the GC can give much guidance to the TC. All realized that this would not be possible before the August 2 workshop but should be done before the next workshop

The group spent the remainder of the discussion outlining potential timeline for the workshop and who would be leading each of the discussions. It was decided that a FWS representative would lead the R1-1 discussion, Dale Strickland the R3-1 discussion, and Mark Czaplewski the R4-1 discussion. Various members as needed would cover other topics.

Election of Chair and Modification of TC Membership

Mike Fritz nominated Paul Tebbel as TC chair. Kevin Urie and others seconded the nomination. Paul was voted chair through a unanimous voice vote.

Rick Brown was added to fill the TBD slot reserved for Colorado on the membership list. Membership changes need to be finalized by the GC.

Adjourn - 6:00 p.m.

Future Meetings

Technical Committee - September 12, 10 a.m.- 6 p.m., Rm 129 of Center for Conferences and Institutes, Laramie County Community College, Cheyenne WY

TC/GC Workshop - September 13, 8 a.m.-2 p.m., Rm 129 of Center for Conferences and Institutes, Laramie County Community College, Cheyenne WY

Technical Committee and potential TC/GC Workshop - October 10 and 11, Scottsbluff NE