Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
Gering Civic Center
Gering, Nebraska
Agenda and Minutes
Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. on October 11 and welcomed the group. Paul noted the discussion regarding protocols would be moved forward on the agenda.
Protocols
Tern and Plover Monitoring
Shay Howlin brought forward several issues and questions individuals had for resolution. Shay commented that concern was raised that data were gathered differently at sandpits compared to islands. It was noted that the protocol was written to provide data and information for looking at trends and not as a means to compare sandpits and islands. If the bias in the sample methods is equal, then the comparison can be made. Sharon Whitmore noted that the IMRC identifies determining the importance of riverine and non-riverine areas as a research topic, and thus maybe the topic should not be covered in the monitoring protocol. Others felt that data should be collected such that comparisons could be made. Shay noted that a comment was also received related to using the Mayfield method for correction of reproductive parameter estimates. The TC agreed that reference to the method should be made.
The TC also discussed concerns related to the difference in experimental unit for sandpits and islands (i.e., experimental unit for sandpit equals colony, experimental unit for island equals nest). Shay explained that colonies as the experimental unit can not be used on the river because island locations will likely shift during the Program and sandpit locations are static. Some TC members suggested breaking out information by larger areas such as bridge segment for both sandpit and river data. There was general agreement that the data was going to be collected in such a manner that this could be done. Two other topics discussed by the TC included the possible need to monitoring the impact of pulse flows on habitat and the arrival/departure dates of terns and plovers. It was agreed that these were important parameters but were not appropriate for this protocol.
Jim Jenniges suggested that the river be flown immediately before conducting airboat surveys. If no bare sand is found, the airboat survey would not be conducted and the number of nests for that survey period would be designated as zero. If any bare sand, size and condition not considered, is observed the survey will be conducted as described in the protocol. This will eliminate the need to conduct the airboat survey when there is not any potential reproductive habitat. Surveys of the sandpits will continue as planned regardless of river conditions. The TC agreed with this approach. The TC also agreed to include actual dates instead of mid-May, mid-June and mid-July as the time frames for surveys. If river surveys are not completed during the set time frame they will be skipped.
The TC discussed how review of the tern and plover protocol as well as other protocols should occur. It was agreed by consensus that individual protocols would be peer reviewed as they are completed. The TC agreed that when consensus was reach on a given protocol, the TC would be accepting both the field methods and analysis methods. The TC agreed that the tern and plover monitoring protocol should be informally reviewed prior to independent peer review. The TC agreed by consensus that Paul should distribute the protocol to Gary Lingle, John Sidle, Eileen Kirsch, John Dinan, and Greg Wingfield with a letter asking for their review and comment. The TC will utilize the informal reviewer's comments and input in finalizing the protocol. Once the protocol is finalized and consensus reach it will be independently peer reviewed by individuals outside the Platte region. Independent peer reviewers will likely be identified through a formal request for proposal and bid process. The TC agreed that peer reviewers would be asked to provide any useful information related to baseline for each protocol.
Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research
Paul Kinzel, USGS, brought the TC up-to-date on the recent work related to the TC's monitoring and research protocol for NPPD's Cottonwood Ranch Property. Paul explained that cross-sectional surveys, bed material samples, and ground photos have been completed on the input and output sections as identified in the protocol. In the managed section they have identified the locations for cross sections and will be conducting additional work in coming weeks. Other work still to be completed includes measuring the downstream cross sections and installation of the stream gauge and optical back scatter recorder for suspended sediment readings. Paul explained that they have done more work than originally called for in the protocol to fully complete the investigations in the output and input areas. Randy Parker, USGS, explained to the TC that he has had some preliminary discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding their potential needs for the Section 404 permit needed by NPPD to initiate management activities. Randy noted that the Corps would likely want one or two transects below the Kearney Diversion Canal and that this is outside of the current scope of work included in the TC's protocol. Randy and the Corps are looking at past Bureau of Reclamation transect locations to see if they will work for the Corps needs. There was some discussion regarding when actual management activities could begin on the property. Jim Jenniges explained that given the delays in receiving the Section 404 permit, the internal NPPD process for advertising and securing contractors, and the work exclusion period for migrating waterfowl and breeding birds, management work is not likely until July 2001. Paul Currier noted that he might be interested in analyzing sediment samples collected through this effort for seed bank determination.
Protocol - continued
General Monitoring
It was explained that a meeting had been scheduled for October 24-25 in Kearney between NPPD, CNPPID, FWS, and NGPC to discuss vegetation monitoring issues and methods for Jeffrey Island and Cottonwood Ranch. All interested parties within the TC were invited to participate as the methods identified for these areas will likely be carried forward and included on Program lands. Most issues identified by Shay Howlin related to the General Monitoring protocol are planned to be addressed at the October 24-25 meeting so the TC deferred discussion until after that meeting. The TC did discuss what, if any, faunal monitoring should coincide with the general geomorphology and vegetation monitoring during the Program. The TC agreed that field researchers should fill out Natural Heritage Program data forms for plants and animals identified on the Natural Heritage Program's list and that no other formal monitoring will planned at this time in conjunction with the general system level monitoring.
Whooping Crane Monitoring
The TC agreed that the Program's monitoring program would not begin with inclusion of the Rainwater Basins as an area of interest. The Program should consider existing information and efforts for use in addressing interests outside of the 3.5-mile boundary identified for monitoring and research purposes. The TC may determine during the Program that reprioritization is necessary and inclusion of the Basins or other areas is needed. The TC also discussed how to handle whooping cranes that spend multiple days/nights in the area. It was decided that the Program should collect the field data on all birds consistently but there was not any decision on how the analysis should be conducted. The TC agreed that equal effort should be expended toward monitoring whooping cranes during the fall migration as during the spring migration.
Minutes
Minor typographic edits were noted and the September meeting minutes were accepted by consensus.
Status Reports
Governance Committee
Paul Tebbel explained that sediment issues continue to be discussed within the Governance Committee (GC).
Black and White Aerial Photography RFP
Clayton Derby updated the TC regarding progress on distribution of the RFP. The TC agreed by consensus that Paul Tebbel and Clayton should review the proposals and select a contractor for conducted the photography.
Habitat Protection Planning Task Force
Mark Czaplewski reported that the Task Force is on hold until completion of the Land Component Policy Statement being considered by the GC.
Baseline
Clayton Derby reported that John Nickum, FWS, had contacted him regarding the baseline discussion at the September TC meeting. John expressed concern to Clayton that there was not a clear understanding of what his document and tables were attempting to explain and what role they may have in the process. John requested that more discussion occur at a future meeting that he could attend. The TC agreed that the baseline issue should be on the next TC agenda for more time then just a status report. Paul explained that he had received information from someone outside the TC regarding goals for a baseline and that he would distribute for discussion at the next meeting. Paul explained that the TC ultimately should report to the GC that R1-1 is completed and all parties are satisfied.
Cooperative Agreement Extension Milestones
Paul explained that the GC needs a list of milestones related to monitoring and research for the Cooperative Agreement Extension. Paul suggested that as one milestone for the TC they identify implementation of monitoring and research protocols as they are completed. It was noted that there might not be sufficient funds to fully implement all protocols during the extension but that implementation at a smaller demonstration/pilot project level would allow refinement of the protocol as well as the collection of some data. The TC identified monitoring and/or research as related to the sediment issue as a milestone. Mark Czaplewski and others noted that it would be most beneficial if the FWS identify the specific details of what is causing continued jeopardy with implementation of the alternatives developed for the proposed Program and the NEPA process and their analysis under ESA and NEPA. This will help narrow the questions monitoring and research should focus on during the extension. Milestones for the extension will also include unfinished milestones as listed in the 1997 Cooperative Agreement.
Membership
Clayton Derby stated that Kevin Church and Jeff Lucas had requested to be removed from the official TC membership list. Clayton also explained that the TC should officially adding Dan Lechefsky to the TC membership for the TBD placeholder under the Bureau of Reclamation. The TC agreed with the membership changes. Paul noted that he would bring before the GC for formal acceptance. Paul will also bring forward Rick Brown for formal placement on the TC membership for Colorado.
Future Meetings
Technical Committee - November 15, 8 a.m.- 1:30 p.m., Denver, Colorado
Adjourn - 1:10 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
Tern and Plover Protocol to reviewers |
|
|
|
Vegetation Monitoring Meeting |
|
|
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