Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 10:10 p.m. on September 12 and welcomed the group. Paul noted slight modifications to the agenda. The August draft minutes were accepted 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 would be distributing a straw-dog draft paper later during the meeting that lays out what the FWS believes is available for determining baseline conditions and what other information is still needed.

Habitat Protection Planning Task Force

Mark Czaplewski reported that the Task Force last met near the end of July and a revised draft was distributed at the end of August. The Task Force is planning a late September or October meeting. Mark noted that some components would not be known until after the Governance Committee (GC) provides input as a result of the September 12 workshop. Hopefully after the next Task Force meeting the draft Plan will be available for distribution and review by the Land Committee and TC.

Protocols

Least Tern and Piping Plover Monitoring Protocol

Shay Howlin explained the work done in preparing the protocol and asked if there were any questions or points of discussion. The TC spent some time discussing the method used to calculate river bank miles and the time allotted for searching each river bank mile. Concern was raised that the current method may require extensive searches in poor tern and plover reproductive habitat and only minimal searches in better areas. Shay will work with TC members to establish an unbiased survey method that samples the various habitats adequately. Dale noted that the GC is expecting all protocols to be backed by TC consensus and that they will have to also be peer reviewed. The TC will need to decide how peer review of protocols is done, individually or as a complete packet.

The TC discussed how the proposed double sampling (airboat survey and walking survey) will work. Shay explained that the double sampling assumes some nests will be missed by the more extensive airboat survey, and to correct the overall estimate of nests and success an intensive walking survey is proposed at selected location along the river. The goal of the double sampling is to determine why nests are found during the airboat survey based on covariates such as distance to water. There was discussion regarding how many nests are needed to make estimates and what the sample units are for in-channel islands and sandpits. The TC also identified the need to keep track of managed and unmanaged sandpits before and after Program initiation. Dale explained that if pits are currently managed in a particular fashion it would be best to continue to manag the pits similarly during the Program to help reduce confounding factors in evaluating the Program.

Other issues discussed regarding the tern and plover protocol included the possible need to float eggs to help establish nest initiation date and probable hatch date. The TC agreed this is not likely needed as the protocol calls for viewing all nests every third day from a distance to determine hatch date estimates. The TC also discussed how to measure vegetation cover at the nest site. Paul asked that all comments be submitted to Shay by September 29, 2000 and consensus will be asked for at the next TC meeting.

General Monitoring Protocol

Shay briefly described the four components currently included in the draft General Monitoring Protocol: geomorphology, vegetation, aerial photography interpretation, and repeat visits to selected historic transect (e.g., BOR transects). The TC discussed possible methods for placing vegetation sampling areas along north-south transects set at anchor points. The TC also discussed timing of vegetation sampling and the implications of when sampling is conducted. For example, transects could be visited in April to coincide with whooping crane use of the river or later in the summer to coincide with tern and plover nesting. There was also some discussion related to the possible need to visit sampling areas that fall within the channel more than once per year. If done multiple times per year it may be possible to look at the effect of specific EA releases. Some questioned whether this was part of research or management rather than monitoring. Support was given for identifying plants to species to look at how the diversity changes over the Program.

Jim Jenniges noted that the FWS and NGPC has asked NPPD and CNPPID for vegetation baseline information on Cottonwood Ranch and Jeffrey Island before management activities are initiated. This will also likely be information that the Program will want on other lands protected. There was discussion regarding exactly what the Districts, FWS, and NGPC needed. Concern was raises regarding the completion of the vegetation section of the protocol because FWS and NGPC have asked that a protocol be developed by November or December. Shay and others believed this was possible if further direction and information was provided describing what is needed.

Whooping Crane Protocol

Shay began the discussion by noting that one of the biggest problems for monitoring whooping cranes will be to eliminate bias (i.e., sample the area, do not just go where birds are known to use). Shay described four components currently contained in the whooping crane protocol: unbiased aerial survey to located birds, use of opportunistic siting of birds, and two components related to measurements once the birds are located. The TC discussed concerns regarding how many times a bird is represented in the data set. It was suggested that ways to address this concern include only conducting measurements at set times during the day or weight observation by a continuous time budget. Other input provided by the TC to Shay included the need to consider 360o open view and not just cross-sectional open channel and to consider multiple transects at a whooping crane location because of the difficulty in identifying exactly where the bird was standing. The TC also discussed the timing and various potential start locations for aerial surveys. The TC suggested daily surveys, and potentially utilizing two planes to quickly cover the study area. Dale Strickland asked that further comments be provided to Shay by September 29, 2000.

Aerial Photography Proposal

Dale asked if anybody knew of potential problems that could arise during the Finance Committee discussion of the proposal. The only potential concern raised was that some DOI representatives had expressed concern regarding the cost of putting the information into a GIS to make the information more useful and available. All expected the Finance Committee to agree with the proposal

Distribution of EIS Background Documents

Mark Butler distributed copies of three documents: existing water quality in the Platte River, water quality of the groundwater mound, and the Simon's report. Mark explained that the documents were prepared for the EIS Team and that they are not asking for official comments. Mark noted that if individuals had comments they should submit them directly to Curt Brown and that no schedule for finalization has been established. Mark also briefly described a report prepared on the high ground water levels and that this had been distributed to the Water Management Committee subgroup looking at this problem. A finalized GIS analysis report is also expected soon.

Mark Butler asked what the TC was expecting for the "Hydrology Section" of the baseline document. Mark explained various possibilities regarding time frame, averages, minimums, maximums, etc., that could be used. It was generally agreed that the development of detailed flow curves was not needed at this point, but that it may be beneficial to identify what data are available and where for future reference. It was suggested that the Water Management Committee should be asked what they thought was needed regarding a hydrology baseline.

Baseline

John Nickum distributed a set of draft tables outlining where the FWS sees quantitative and qualitative data sets on a broad scale. John explained that often areas such as wet meadow have quantitative data regarding how much wet meadow acreage exists, but only qualitative data on the plant communities within the wet meadows. There was discussion that the tables identify some areas as only containing qualitative data for the entire river, but that there might be sections of the river which contain quantitative data. The examples of channel dynamics data collected by Carter Johnson and past BOR transects were given as examples. Dale explained that information such as this may indeed provide quantitative data for those specific sites but might not be extrapolated to the entire river. There was discussion regarding how the TC can utilize the tables and how the Executive Director's office can utilize the tables in preparing protocols. Concern was raised that John did not review the original information contained in the Woodward-Clyde document, but rather utilized the document itself and comments received regarding the document. John noted that he has gone through and reviewed the information in a way that identifies what is available for conducting activities such as drafting Biological Opinions. It was noted that in some instances, qualitative data may be sufficient for a baseline and in other areas quantitative data are needed. John noted that text has been drafted to accompany the tables and that it would be distributed shortly.

R3-1 Milestone

Sharon Whitmore distributed two documents related to the R3-1 milestone: "R3-1 Tables" and "Straw-dog for Defining the Relationship between the TC R2-1 IMRC and the Service's R3-1 Document." Sharon explained that after reviewing the documents it was thought the only data need identified in the R3-1 and not in the IMRC was the research/monitoring need regarding the impacts of thick erosive ice. There was discussion regarding how to incorporate the R3-1 information into the IMRC, and if there is a need for an R3-1 Document if the information is combined. Mark Butler noted that the only reason for the R3-1 Document was because a Cooperative Agreement milestone identified the need for the information and the FWS needs to be recognized for completion of the milestone. In Mark's opinion the information related to baseline, data needs, and protocols all should be combined into one document, and that this document might be the IMRC. Dale noted that the R3-1 information adds detail to the general protocol descriptions found in the IMRC.

The FWS asked that they be recognized for completing their R3-1 milestone obligations and then the data needs could be incorporated into the IMRC. The IMRC will need to be a consensus document between all parties. It was decided by consensus that Paul would indicate to the Governance Committee that the TC agrees that the FWS has completed its R3-1 milestone by providing work products on data needs for determining biological response of target species to the Program. The TC will now go forward with the development of a consensus Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan (IMRP) using as appropriate the materials provided by the FWS. This consensus IMRP will define the Program's data needs and analysis for determining biological response of target species to the Program during the First Increment. Paul will also ask for Governance Committee agreement with this determination.

Technical Committee/Governance Committee Workshop Agenda

The TC discussed the draft agenda that included information from a letter sent by Ralph Morgenweck as the goal of the meeting. There was debate whether the meeting should review Ralph's letter or go through the specific questions and issues asked in the agenda. Dale indicated that he would provide the Governance Committee with Ralph's letter as well as the agenda and ask them to decide whether to discuss the letter first or the specific points first. Dale noted that he would challenge the Governance Committee to reach consensus on Ralph's issue.

Mark Butler stated that when the FWS is talking about using the Joint Study, they are only talking about the concept of habitat complexes with flexibility. This is all that is being brought forward into the Program from the Joint Study. There was further discussion regarding the aspects of the Joint Study as well as the use of the Habitat Protection Plan as a basis for discussion. It was suggested that several people take notes during the workshop.

Adaptive Management

Sharon Whitmore had asked for a small working group to work on drafting the adaptive management portion of the Program Document. No one volunteered.

Future Meetings

Technical Committee - October 10 and 11, Gering, NE

Adjourn - 6:00 p.m.

For further information, contact the Technical Committee chair

 

---

For further information about the Partnership, contact any Governance Committee member.
For comments and questions about this website, please email Buck Feist or call 406-247-7607