See other minutes at: Governance Committee / Land Committee / Water Management Committee / Water Action Plan Committee
Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
December 21, 2000
Platte River Trust
Alda, Nebraska
Agenda and Minutes
Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. and welcomed the group. Paul noted minor changes to the agenda. Suggested changes to the November minutes were made and the minutes as amended were accep
ted by consensus.Concern was raised about the circulation of technical documents by the FWS, including the whooping crane model report and the final minutes from the species recovery workshop. It was noted that these topics were FWS issues and were not necessarily full Technical Committee (TC) activities or issues, therefore, the FWS distributed the information first to the Governance Committee (GC). There was some discussion regarding the role of the TC in these issues and other technical matters that may develop during the Cooperative Agreement (CA) and Program. Paul Tebbel noted that if technical information goes before the GC (e.g., State Depletion Plans), the GC needs to insure the information and any necessary action is delegated to the proper subcommittee. This will help keep proper lines of communication open.Status Reports
Governance Committee Paul reported that the major topic discussed during the last GC meeting was the Cooperative Agreement Extension.Black and White Aerial PhotographyClayton Derby reported that the contract end date was changed from December 15, 2000 to May 1, 2001. This will allow for a possible early spring flight before leaf out.Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research ProjectJim Jenniges reported that no further work on the monitoring and research project was done since the last TC meeting. Jim gave a brief update of the monitoring and research activities at Cottonwood Ranch in 2000.Cooperative Agreement Extension and Critical Path
Clayton stated that the GC had formally extended the CA to June 30, 2003, by unanimous vote during a December 15 conference call. Clayton used overheads to review milestones and subtasks identified in the Extension Document needing completion by May 2001 (see attachment). It was noted that several of the milestones have direct or indirect TC involvement. Clayton stated that since the GC plans to meet bimonthly, draft documents due in May need to be presented to them for discussion at their March meeting. This will allow the TC time to revise the documents based on GC input and for the GC to approve the work and complete the milestones at the May GC meeting.The TC discussed what was meant by "monitoring categories" as identified in the Extension Document. Sharon Whitmore and others explained that the FWS needs the draft Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan (IMRP) more fleshed out to help them identify and analyze in the Biological Opinion how and what the Program will be monitoring.The TC also discussed how peer review of individual protocols fits into the tight schedule for implementation of completed monitoring protocols in 2001 (e.g., tern and plover, whooping crane) and how the entire IMRP will be peer reviewed. It was suggested that the TC conduct just the informal reviews before field implementation of the monitoring protocols at a pilot/demonstration project level. Protocols would then be updated and modified based on the first year's information and then sent to independent peer reviewers. The TC asked Paul to communicate this possible change in protocols after a field season or pilot/demonstration project to the GC. It was noted that once all protocols are completed and incorporated into the IMRP, the TC will decide if the entire document should be peer reviewed. The peer review would help insure the monitoring and research package will answer the questions the Program wants answered. Some time was spent discussing how the TC can move funding requests through the Finance Committee and GC in time for field implementation of protocols at any level (i.e., pilot project or full implementation) in 2001.The TC discussed what the objectives of the whooping crane protocol should be, and Paul Tebbel noted that the objectives might change slightly after a pilot project. Paul briefly updated the TC regarding current efforts by the National Wildlife Federation and Nebraska Wildlife Federation to conduct a ground survey for whooping cranes starting in 2001 using the TC's protocol. Mike Fritz also updated the TC regarding NGPC's ongoing project to compile historic tern, plover, and whooping crane data. Sharon Whitmore and Paul Tebbel noted that for scheduling purposes the TC needs to decide if they want to implement the whooping crane monitoring protocol this spring. There was some discussion regarding who could conduct the actual monitoring: volunteers; technicians hired by the Trust, NGPC, or others; current personnel; or hired contractors. The TC discussed how to get the whooping crane monitoring funded in time for implementation in spring 2001. The group suspended further discussion of the whooping protocol until the protocol was officially discussed later in the meeting (see below).Protocols
General Monitoring Protocol Mark Peyton updated the TC on a vegetation monitoring meeting held on December 20, 2000. Mark reported that the Districts, NGPC and FWS (members of the Monitoring Oversight Committee for the Districts' licenses) had adopted the Project Land and Management Area sections of the protocol as amended at the meeting for implementation in 2001. Mark briefly went over the design and methods described for these two scales of monitoring and explained that there was no discussion regarding the system level monitoring at the December 20 meeting. Mark explained that the Districts anticipate funding the monitoring at the following level of effort: 12 transects at Cottonwood Ranch and 14 at Jeffrey Island for the Project Land level and 100 plots at each property in the Management Areas (one plot per six acres). The RFP/proposal process for implementation of the protocol will help serve as an informal review process for the final protocol. Paul Tebbel noted that if the TC desires more work to be completed than is currently planned, the TC should request funding from the Finance Committee and GC.The TC spent some time discussing the overall objective of the proposed monitoring and specifically the need of the Monitoring Oversight Committee to have in place a protocol to collect baseline vegetation information. It was noted that information related to birds, mammal, invertebrates and other fauna will not be collected through this protocol. If the TC desires system level monitoring of the fauna, separate protocols will be needed. It was noted that the General Monitoring protocol should tie in, by reference at a minimum, the GIS protocol and protocols for aerial photography yet to be written. The TC spent limited time discussing the geomorphology aspects of the general monitoring protocol. In particular the TC wanted clarification in the protocol on the analysis of data related to bed load and suspended sediment collected at gauge locations not systematically placed throughout the system. It was noted that more information related to sediment and the geomorphology will be available in future given the current efforts by the BOR, USGS, and states. Comments on the protocol are due to the Executive Director's office by January 8, 2001.Whooping Crane MonitoringPaul Tebbel started the discussion with again asking if the TC wanted to implement any whooping crane monitoring in spring 2001. There was a discussion regarding the pros and cons of implementing all or part of the protocol this spring. The option of starting implementation of the protocol in fall 2001 was also discussed. Paul noted that it would be best to fully implement the protocol so that the short use by whooping cranes in the spring is not missed. This is in comparison to only implementing the protocol for one or two weeks as a pilot project. If monitoring is only conducted for one or two weeks a whooping crane stopover might be missed. There was general agreement to conduct some whooping crane monitoring effort this spring. There was another discussion regarding who could coordinate and conduct the monitoring activities. It was decided that a small group of Dave Carlson, Mike Fritz, Paul Tebbel, Paul Obert, Paul Currier, and Bob Henszey would work with the Executive Director's office to determine what might be possible to implement this spring, cost of implementation, and who would conduct the work. This group will also help refine and edit the protocol in the future before full TC review and discussion. The small group will meet January 3, 2001, at 9:00 at the Trust facility near Alda. A second meeting or conference call was tentatively planned for January 16 at 1:00 p.m. at either Grand Island or the Trust. Paul asked for and received TC concurrence that he can bring a heads-up on what the TC is planning regarding whooping cranes to the GC before the entire TC reviews and discusses the issue further.Tern and Plover MonitoringPaul Tebbel asked if the TC wants to conduct an independent peer review of the tern and plover protocol at this time. The TC agreed to conduct the peer review after completion of a pilot project, or full implementation of the protocol, this field season. A small working group of Jim Jenniges, Erika Wilson, Mark Peyton and Mike Fritz was identified to help with further work as needed on the protocol.PrioritiesClayton Derby went through the protocols identified as top priority in the TC's January 11, 2000, "Proposal for Writing Monitoring Protocols for the Cooperative Agreement and Proposed Program". Clayton reported that four of the seven protocols identified are currently being drafted (i.e., tern and plover, whooping crane, and general monitoring which combines two of the identified top priorities). Clayton then asked for direction on what protocols should be worked on next. The TC identified drafting the protocol for database construction as highest priority among the remaining three identified in the proposal. The TC also gave direction to the Executive Director's office that the highest priority overall should be given to writing Environmental Account related protocols. Protocols should look at evaluating the objectives of specific types of flows (e.g., pulse flows, flows for fish survival). The TC gave specific direction to the Executive Director's office to first begin work on protocols to evaluate flows on seedling removal/channel maintenance and fish survival. This is a change from the protocols first identified as highest priority in January 2000. These two protocols were selected as they might be implemented in the summer of 2001 and not because they were more important than protocols that will evaluate other types of flows. Paul Tebbel noted that a monitoring priority for the GC would likely be to fill baseline data gapsFuture Meetings
Technical Committee - 1-5 p.m. MST January 23 and 8 a.m.-12 p.m. MST January 24, Ogallala, Nebraska, site TBD.Whooping Crane Monitoring Subgroup - 9 a.m. CST, January 3, Trust Facility, Alda, NebraskaWhooping Crane Monitoring Subgroup - tentative meeting scheduled for January 16, 1-5 p.m., site TBD.
Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. and welcomed the group. Paul noted minor changes to the agenda. Suggested changes to the November minutes were made and the minutes as amended were accep
ted by consensus.Concern was raised about the circulation of technical documents by the FWS, including the whooping crane model report and the final minutes from the species recovery workshop. It was noted that these topics were FWS issues and were not necessarily full Technical Committee (TC) activities or issues, therefore, the FWS distributed the information first to the Governance Committee (GC). There was some discussion regarding the role of the TC in these issues and other technical matters that may develop during the Cooperative Agreement (CA) and Program. Paul Tebbel noted that if technical information goes before the GC (e.g., State Depletion Plans), the GC needs to insure the information and any necessary action is delegated to the proper subcommittee. This will help keep proper lines of communication open.Status Reports
Governance Committee Paul reported that the major topic discussed during the last GC meeting was the Cooperative Agreement Extension.Black and White Aerial PhotographyClayton Derby reported that the contract end date was changed from December 15, 2000 to May 1, 2001. This will allow for a possible early spring flight before leaf out.Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research ProjectJim Jenniges reported that no further work on the monitoring and research project was done since the last TC meeting. Jim gave a brief update of the monitoring and research activities at Cottonwood Ranch in 2000.Cooperative Agreement Extension and Critical Path
Clayton stated that the GC had formally extended the CA to June 30, 2003, by unanimous vote during a December 15 conference call. Clayton used overheads to review milestones and subtasks identified in the Extension Document needing completion by May 2001 (see attachment). It was noted that several of the milestones have direct or indirect TC involvement. Clayton stated that since the GC plans to meet bimonthly, draft documents due in May need to be presented to them for discussion at their March meeting. This will allow the TC time to revise the documents based on GC input and for the GC to approve the work and complete the milestones at the May GC meeting.The TC discussed what was meant by "monitoring categories" as identified in the Extension Document. Sharon Whitmore and others explained that the FWS needs the draft Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan (IMRP) more fleshed out to help them identify and analyze in the Biological Opinion how and what the Program will be monitoring.The TC also discussed how peer review of individual protocols fits into the tight schedule for implementation of completed monitoring protocols in 2001 (e.g., tern and plover, whooping crane) and how the entire IMRP will be peer reviewed. It was suggested that the TC conduct just the informal reviews before field implementation of the monitoring protocols at a pilot/demonstration project level. Protocols would then be updated and modified based on the first year's information and then sent to independent peer reviewers. The TC asked Paul to communicate this possible change in protocols after a field season or pilot/demonstration project to the GC. It was noted that once all protocols are completed and incorporated into the IMRP, the TC will decide if the entire document should be peer reviewed. The peer review would help insure the monitoring and research package will answer the questions the Program wants answered. Some time was spent discussing how the TC can move funding requests through the Finance Committee and GC in time for field implementation of protocols at any level (i.e., pilot project or full implementation) in 2001.The TC discussed what the objectives of the whooping crane protocol should be, and Paul Tebbel noted that the objectives might change slightly after a pilot project. Paul briefly updated the TC regarding current efforts by the National Wildlife Federation and Nebraska Wildlife Federation to conduct a ground survey for whooping cranes starting in 2001 using the TC's protocol. Mike Fritz also updated the TC regarding NGPC's ongoing project to compile historic tern, plover, and whooping crane data. Sharon Whitmore and Paul Tebbel noted that for scheduling purposes the TC needs to decide if they want to implement the whooping crane monitoring protocol this spring. There was some discussion regarding who could conduct the actual monitoring: volunteers; technicians hired by the Trust, NGPC, or others; current personnel; or hired contractors. The TC discussed how to get the whooping crane monitoring funded in time for implementation in spring 2001. The group suspended further discussion of the whooping protocol until the protocol was officially discussed later in the meeting (see below).Protocols
General Monitoring Protocol Mark Peyton updated the TC on a vegetation monitoring meeting held on December 20, 2000. Mark reported that the Districts, NGPC and FWS (members of the Monitoring Oversight Committee for the Districts' licenses) had adopted the Project Land and Management Area sections of the protocol as amended at the meeting for implementation in 2001. Mark briefly went over the design and methods described for these two scales of monitoring and explained that there was no discussion regarding the system level monitoring at the December 20 meeting. Mark explained that the Districts anticipate funding the monitoring at the following level of effort: 12 transects at Cottonwood Ranch and 14 at Jeffrey Island for the Project Land level and 100 plots at each property in the Management Areas (one plot per six acres). The RFP/proposal process for implementation of the protocol will help serve as an informal review process for the final protocol. Paul Tebbel noted that if the TC desires more work to be completed than is currently planned, the TC should request funding from the Finance Committee and GC.The TC spent some time discussing the overall objective of the proposed monitoring and specifically the need of the Monitoring Oversight Committee to have in place a protocol to collect baseline vegetation information. It was noted that information related to birds, mammal, invertebrates and other fauna will not be collected through this protocol. If the TC desires system level monitoring of the fauna, separate protocols will be needed. It was noted that the General Monitoring protocol should tie in, by reference at a minimum, the GIS protocol and protocols for aerial photography yet to be written. The TC spent limited time discussing the geomorphology aspects of the general monitoring protocol. In particular the TC wanted clarification in the protocol on the analysis of data related to bed load and suspended sediment collected at gauge locations not systematically placed throughout the system. It was noted that more information related to sediment and the geomorphology will be available in future given the current efforts by the BOR, USGS, and states. Comments on the protocol are due to the Executive Director's office by January 8, 2001.Whooping Crane MonitoringPaul Tebbel started the discussion with again asking if the TC wanted to implement any whooping crane monitoring in spring 2001. There was a discussion regarding the pros and cons of implementing all or part of the protocol this spring. The option of starting implementation of the protocol in fall 2001 was also discussed. Paul noted that it would be best to fully implement the protocol so that the short use by whooping cranes in the spring is not missed. This is in comparison to only implementing the protocol for one or two weeks as a pilot project. If monitoring is only conducted for one or two weeks a whooping crane stopover might be missed. There was general agreement to conduct some whooping crane monitoring effort this spring. There was another discussion regarding who could coordinate and conduct the monitoring activities. It was decided that a small group of Dave Carlson, Mike Fritz, Paul Tebbel, Paul Obert, Paul Currier, and Bob Henszey would work with the Executive Director's office to determine what might be possible to implement this spring, cost of implementation, and who would conduct the work. This group will also help refine and edit the protocol in the future before full TC review and discussion. The small group will meet January 3, 2001, at 9:00 at the Trust facility near Alda. A second meeting or conference call was tentatively planned for January 16 at 1:00 p.m. at either Grand Island or the Trust. Paul asked for and received TC concurrence that he can bring a heads-up on what the TC is planning regarding whooping cranes to the GC before the entire TC reviews and discusses the issue further.Tern and Plover MonitoringPaul Tebbel asked if the TC wants to conduct an independent peer review of the tern and plover protocol at this time. The TC agreed to conduct the peer review after completion of a pilot project, or full implementation of the protocol, this field season. A small working group of Jim Jenniges, Erika Wilson, Mark Peyton and Mike Fritz was identified to help with further work as needed on the protocol.PrioritiesClayton Derby went through the protocols identified as top priority in the TC's January 11, 2000, "Proposal for Writing Monitoring Protocols for the Cooperative Agreement and Proposed Program". Clayton reported that four of the seven protocols identified are currently being drafted (i.e., tern and plover, whooping crane, and general monitoring which combines two of the identified top priorities). Clayton then asked for direction on what protocols should be worked on next. The TC identified drafting the protocol for database construction as highest priority among the remaining three identified in the proposal. The TC also gave direction to the Executive Director's office that the highest priority overall should be given to writing Environmental Account related protocols. Protocols should look at evaluating the objectives of specific types of flows (e.g., pulse flows, flows for fish survival). The TC gave specific direction to the Executive Director's office to first begin work on protocols to evaluate flows on seedling removal/channel maintenance and fish survival. This is a change from the protocols first identified as highest priority in January 2000. These two protocols were selected as they might be implemented in the summer of 2001 and not because they were more important than protocols that will evaluate other types of flows. Paul Tebbel noted that a monitoring priority for the GC would likely be to fill baseline data gapsFuture Meetings
Technical Committee - 1-5 p.m. MST January 23 and 8 a.m.-12 p.m. MST January 24, Ogallala, Nebraska, site TBD.Whooping Crane Monitoring Subgroup - 9 a.m. CST, January 3, Trust Facility, Alda, NebraskaWhooping Crane Monitoring Subgroup - tentative meeting scheduled for January 16, 1-5 p.m., site TBD.
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
WC subgroup meetings |
see above |
see above |
|
Gen. Mon. Protocol comments to ED |
January 8 |
TC |
|
Redraft IMRP to TC |
mid-January |
ED Office |
Attachments to December TC Minutes:
Milestones and subtasks for completion by May
2001
1. January 31, 2001 -
DOI will deliver to the GC quantitative data,
modeling assumptions, input, etc on the sed/veg
model (C1-EXT)2. March 1, 2001 -
FWS and GC identify components of continued
jeopardy under the existing proposed Program
and other NEPA/ESA alternatives (A3-EXT)POSSIBLE
TC INVOLVEMENT3. March 31, 2001 -
LC and Executive Director's office develop
method to track lands offered to the
Program (L2-EXT)4. March -
TC implement protocols as available
(Whooping Crane protocol) (R1-EXT) TC TASK5. May 1, 2001 -
Agreement on monitoring categories
(what is to be monitored vs. available
funding) (Existing R-milestones; IMRP) TC
TASK6. May 1, 2001 -
Land Policy Statement agreed to
by GC (L3-EXT)7. May 1, 2001 -
GC agree on an allocation of
committee budgets for the CA extension (A1-EXT)
POSSIBLE TC INVOLVEMENT8. May 1, 2001 -
For each state's depletion
plan: identify types of projects covered
and analysis of potential effects
on pulse flows (W1-EXT, W2-EXT,
W4-EXT)9. May 15, 2001 -
Habitat Protection Plan agreed
to by GC (L1-EXT) TC INVOLVEMENT;
NEEDED TC ACTION
Technical Committee Schedule
December 21, 2000 - May 20011. December 21, 2000 - TC meeting, identify tasks for
completion of May or earlier milestones that pertain to the TC and
identify method for completion of tasks
- IMRP (for monitoring and research categories)
- Protocols (WC, general)
- HPP (TC and LC to be included)
- Others?
2. January 2001 -
complete/update drafts of documents listed above3. January TC Meeting -
Discuss drafts4. Mid-February -
TC written comments on draft documents5. Late February TC Meeting -
Discuss comments and revised drafts6. March 7, 2001 -
Distribute draft documents to GC
for review7. March 22, 2001 -
GC discusses draft documents at
GC meeting8. April 9, 2001 -
Written comments back from GC9. April 16, 2001 -
revised documents back to TC10. Late April (4/25) -
TC Meeting to review GC comments11. May 2, 2001 -
Final written TC comments
on all documents12. May 2-May 11 -
Incorporate final TC
comments13. May 11, 2001 -
Documents to GC for
mid/late May GC meeting where
documents accepted
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