Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

November 15, 2000
Denver Water
Denver CO

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. and welcomed the group. A discussion regarding the effects Environmental Account releases may have on baseline conditions was added to the agenda. Sharon Whitmore provided suggested changes to the October minutes and the minutes as amended were accepted by consensus.

Status Reports

Governance Committee

Mark Butler explained that he gave an update on the whooping crane model analysis conducted by the USGS and distributed copies of the report at the last Governance Committee (GC) meeting. Mark also stated that more copies could be printed if there was a need. Mark updated the Technical Committee (TC) regarding the schedule for comments on the draft minutes from the Species Recovery Plan Workshop. The schedule as currently planned has the final minutes being completed in mid-December and at that point the minutes will be distributed to the TC and others. After the minutes are completed a report will be developed that helps show the FWS's point of view on species recovery goals for terns, plovers, whooping cranes, and pallid sturgeon in the central and lower Platte. Paul Tebbel explained that the schedule was a fairly major discussion point at the GC meeting and that the new schedule will help individuals provide input. It was noted there would likely be a second workshop held in the future.

Paul stated that another topic discussed at the GC included the Cooperative Agreement extension. Paul gave an update on the current thinking as to when information is needed to the EIS Team and FWS for their analysis and when a Program is likely to begin. Paul also gave a brief update on a report from Marty Zeller, Conservation Partners, related to identification of potential Land Interest Holding Entities for the Program.

Aerial Photography

Clayton Derby updated the group regarding the contract with Horizons, Inc., to conduct black and white aerial photography of the central Platte this fall/winter. Clayton noted that snow and ice cover have effectively eliminated the possibility of conducting the photography before December 15, as was the indicated end date in the Scope of Work. The TC agreed that Dale Strickland should work with the Nebraska Community Foundation and Horizons Inc. to extend the end date to May 1. Dayle Williamson, Finance Committee Chair, agreed with this approach.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Project

Randy Parker updated the TC regarding progress on the TC's Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Project. The USGS has collected all cross sectional data and sediment data within Cottonwood Ranch and they are now waiting until the ice thaws to collect the information on downstream sections and install the gauge. The USGS is also waiting for complete budget approval between the Bureau of Reclamation and USGS before continuing. Randy addressed potential US Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements for restoration work on Cottonwood Ranch. The biggest requirement outside of the current efforts include two valley wide transects, one in the middle of Cottonwood Ranch and the other downstream near the Kearney Canal. Actual management work will likely not begin on the property until July 2001 or later.

Protocols

Tern and Plover Monitoring

Paul Tebbel explained that the protocol was sent to five informal reviewers agreed to at the October TC meeting and one response from Gary Lingle was received. The TC asked that the Executive Director's office contact the remaining four reviewers and determine if they intend to complete the reviews. Shay Howlin went over the comments received from Gary Lingle and the TC agreed that the comments do not significantly alter the protocol. If other informal reviews received (if any) do not significantly change the protocol, the same version will be sent to the independent peer reviewers. Clayton noted that he has received several names of potential independent peer reviewers and asked that TC members submit other names before December 1. The Executive Director's office will distribute a list of all potential independent peer reviewers to the TC for their review to insure that there is agreement on the list from all parties. The TC agreed that the independent reviewers for the protocol should include two biologist and one statistician. The TC agreed that a maximum honorarium of $300-500 per reviewer would be offered to the independent reviewers. The Finance Committee has agreed that a formal RFP process is not needed to secure the reviewers. The Executive Director's office will work with the TC to identify peer reviewers by January 1, 2001 and then work with the reviewers to have the reviews done by 2/1/2001.

The TC spent some time discussing how protocols may be implemented next year, either in their entirety or some portion of each protocol. Several options are available and range from existing personnel conducting all the work to the TC hiring contractors to conduct the work. Dale Strickland suggested that the TC identify their priorities by the January GC and identify who should conduct the work. The ultimate decision will likely be based on funding from the GC. It was noted that the current list of protocols for writing might need to be revised to accurately reflect the current needs and concerns of the TC for monitoring and research.

General Monitoring

The TC spent the majority of the meeting discussing the vegetation component of the general monitoring protocol. It was noted that a small group of TC members and others met in Kearney in late October to discuss how FERC license requirements for the Districts will fit with Program needs. From that meeting there was not a clear understanding of what the objectives of vegetation monitoring for the Program should be. Shay Howlin explained the three "scales" currently discussed in the protocol as a result of the October meeting. The scales vary from the broadest system wide monitoring, to monitoring needed on Program lands, and finally to the finest scale of management units (e.g., areas to be cleared) within Program lands. There was general agreement with the three-scale approach from the TC. The TC now needs to clearly identify the objectives for each scale. There was also general agreement with the need to measure plant species composition regardless of the methods used at the Program land and management unit scales and to use aerial photography/GIS methods as the primary means to monitor the entire system. One possibility for the system level monitoring would be to "sample" using aerial photography (e.g., line transects) on a more frequent time step and a census of land covers through a complete GIS effort once or twice during the Program.

For the Program lands and likely the management unit, Sharon Whitmore noted that the FWS needs an inventory of species composition within each community type (e.g., forest), but the methods to achieve this inventory are not agreed upon. Jan McKee explained that the TC needs to decide exactly what the questions for each scale are. For example, does the TC want to know how much cottonwood/dogwood forest there is in the system or on Program lands or is simply knowing how much forest is present sufficient. It was noted that for some vegetation types a finer level of detail might be needed throughout the system (e.g., how much wet meadow vs how much upland grassland). Shay explained that the protocol anticipates this need and identifies wet meadow as needing on-the-ground surveys throughout the system whereas other vegetation types would simply be sampled through aerial photos (not a complete GIS effort). For Program lands the protocol anticipates quantifying all habitat types and then species composition with in each type. There was general agreement with this approach. There was some discussion regarding how the protocol will handle rare vegetation types. Shay and Dale explained that for extremely rare vegetation types, specific protocols will be needed.

Whooping Crane Monitoring

The TC agreed that daily aerial flights were needed as a component of the whooping crane monitoring, at least to begin with. There was some discussion how to utilize an effective ground component for the monitoring. Carolyn Green, National Wildlife Federation, suggested that the National and Nebraska Wildlife Federations were interested in helping implement protocols and that maybe they could mobilize a large volunteer effort from within their organizations. Dale noted that this could also be useful to compare the aerial survey methods against in a double-sampling effort. There was a discussion regarding the inherent biases associated with ground and aerial surveys and the need to avoid the biases or estimate them. The protocol should be written to include both the aerial and ground components and if efforts to mobilize a large volunteer effort are successful they will follow the Cooperative Agreement's protocol. During the Program one of the components (ground/aerial) might be dropped.

Environmental Account Monitoring/Research Need

Jim Jenniges suggested that if Environmental Account (EA) releases are being conducted for specific needs, the Cooperative Agreement or FWS should conduct monitoring or research to determine if the releases accomplish what was intended. Information from the monitoring and research could also be used to help prioritize future releases.

Mark Butler explained that he has heard complaints that EA releases are impacting the baseline and distributed a handout that graphically described EA releases in 2000. Mark stated that he could not see any direct effect EA release could have had on the baseline. Some members asked for clarification as to why water was released if it did not have an effect. Sharon Whitmore clarified that it is hard to say EA releases in 2000 had an impact on baseline because flows during the two prior years without releases were greater. Mark Butler explained that to look at EA impacts on baseline two potential methods exist; 1) use some period of record before the EA to compare flows against after the EA, or 2) use of a model to predict what flows would have been without releases. It will be possible to say there is X amount of EA water in the flow, not what the flow would have been without the EA releases because operations may have been different without an EA.

Sharon Whitmore briefly described the discussion from a recent EA Committee meeting related to ice flows and EA releases to remove vegetation. Jim suggested that plots established this fall by Carter Johnson could be used to evaluate those flows if they are implemented. Sharon asked that members submit ideas related to use of the EA or correct conditions for conducting ice-scouring flows to her for possible inclusion in the Annual EA Operating Plan. Paul Tebbel suggested that the EA Committee was the proper group to identify and prioritize monitoring and research questions regarding the EA and then the TC could help draft and implement protocols.

Future Meetings

Technical Committee - 9 a.m. CST, December 21, 2000, Trust Facility near Alda.

Vegetation Monitoring Subgroup meeting tentatively planned for December 20, time and location TBD.

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