Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
April 19, 2001
Hitching Post Inn
Cheyenne WY
Agenda and Minutes
Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. and welcomed the group. Introductions were made. Changes to draft March TC meeting minutes were suggested and the minutes were accepted as modified.
Status Reports
Governance Committee and Finance Committee
Dale Strickland reported that at their last meeting the Governance Committee (GC) approved implementation of the Tern and Plover Monitoring Protocol using cooperators and that the Land Policy Statement had been provisionally approved. Dale noted that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) offered the GC the opportunity to use TNC to protect lands during Cooperative Agreement Extension; therefore allowing the Program to have lands secured at the beginning of the Program. The GC asked the TNC to draft a more formal proposal. TNC noted it would be difficult to piece together large complexes of land, since the typical acreage for a single parcel is about 80-320 acres. Dale noted that Vernon Nelson and Rhodell Jameson, Land Committee Chairs, have suggested this type of arrangement several times, but there may be difficulty in getting the GC to agree to protect lands or commit to TNC before a Program is in place.
Black and White Aerial Photography
Clayton Derby provided the update. Photos were taken Tuesday, April 17, 2001, with constant flows being released from J-2 for the photos. There were some concerns with high flows (above 1,500 cfs). Dale noted that consideration was given to not flying; however, Randy Parker needed the photos to interpret data for the Cottonwood Ranch project. Dale also noted that Ann Bleed asked that the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) be contacted when the TC is attempting to manipulate flows for monitoring or research purposes to insure that Nebraska water law is considered and instream flow requirements are met.
Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Project
Clayton noted that Randy Parker expects to complete the first round of cross-sectional measurements and begin the re-measurements of last years transects at Cottonwood Ranch in the coming weeks. Jim Jenniges reported that NPPD let a bid for wetland restoration work on the South side of the ranch. Beginning date for work depends on the Contractor, but could begin as early as two weeks.
Whooping Crane Aerial Survey Monitoring
Clayton Derby read a report provided by Gary Lingle regarding whooping crane sightings through the TC monitoring effort. It was noted that the majority of birds are still south of Nebraska and thus there is still a good opportunity for further sightings. Clayton noted that there have been some problems associated with the pilots not arriving on time, however, that problem appears to have been resolved. Another problem associated with the monitoring was that the ground crew was not being dispatched to all probable whooping crane sightings. On Tuesday April 17, 2001, the east plane spotted a potential whooping crane, however the ground crew was not dispatched to verify the sighting. Gary has said that in the future all possible whooping crane sighting will be investigated from the ground. Clayton noted that detectability trials have begun with cooperators placing whooping crane decoys in designated areas. There was some discussion regarding the communication with groups south of Nebraska with Nebraska personnel. Paul Tebbel expressed the need for a coordinated reporting system so that all people can be updated.
Tern and Plover Monitoring
The GC approved the tern and plover monitoring protocol and a subgroup comprised of Erica Wilson, Jim Jenniges, Mark Peyton, Mark Czaplewski, Jeff Marcus, and the Executive Director's office is planning to meet to insure all parties clearly understand the protocol.
Protocols
General Monitoring
No change is status.
Aerial Photography
Clayton Derby explained that if the TC wishes to conduct color-infrared aerial photography in 2001, a decision is needed to bring the proposal before the Finance Committee and Governance Committee. Sharon Whitmore noted that justification for the photos should be clarified and strengthened and a more specific description of how the photos will be used for the protocols should be included. There was discussion regarding coordinating the CIR photos with tern and plover monitoring and a possible planned pulse flow. Dale suggested a full proposal be submitted to the FC at their meeting on April 26th. There was consensus with submitting a full proposal to the FC on April 26, 2001. TC comments are due by April 24, 2001.
Flow Related Research Protocols
Sharon updated the TC regarding a proposed EA pulse flow planned for late-May or early-June. Sharon noted that she is working with the BOR to determine if and when a pulse should be attempted, and then will work with the Executive Director's office to investigate monitoring options. The goals of the proposed pulse are to use a small-scale pulse to determine logistics, evaluate flooding, review the feasibility of future pulses, and attempt to remove in-channel vegetation. The pulse will be about 4,000 cfs at Grand Island. All parties recognize the need for more system-wide monitoring in the future; but the TC expressed the need for some cursory monitoring this year. Concerns were raised regarding the logistics of conducting any monitoring. One option for monitoring is to conduct black and white aerial photography with leaf-on before and after flows (1:6,000). Another option is to hire Carter Johnson to remeasure his plots after the pulse, as he is planning to measure his plots before the pulse on May 19-20. It was noted that the first tern and plover survey should be completed before the pulse. Rick Brown ask Dale to put together a schedule for all monitoring and research activities planned, such as Tern and Plover Surveys, CIR Photos, Pulse Flow, Vegetation Monitoring, etc.
The TC discussed the possible need for sediment monitoring related to the pulse. Mark Butler noted that the primary objective of the pulse is to confirm model predictions for flows, stay within flood levels, and work out the logistics with the Districts and water users. Concern was expressed about drawing conclusions from a test of 4000-cfs flow; regarding what happens with a flow of 8,000 -10,000 cfs.
Management Specific Monitoring under General Monitoring Protocol
The TC discussed a pre-proposal for FC consideration. The pre-proposal would be for augmenting the Executive Director's budget to allow them to implement the Management-Specific vegetation monitoring portion of the General Monitoring Protocol at the Phase I area of Cottonwood Ranch. This is the only section of the protocol not currently being tested and the TC could decide that more/fewer points are needed based on the results of the test. There was consensus to develop a pre-proposal for FC consideration.
R3-1 Tables/Charts
Dale explained that he asked the FWS for guidance on their minimum data requirements to use as a sideboard for the Program's monitoring. Charts and tables were distributed containing the Service's response to his request. The charts and tables contain the Service's minimum data requirements to conduct a review of the Program at the end of the First Increment. However, the Service indicated they would use all available information for their evaluation. Dale suggested that this information should be considered the minimum Program monitoring needs. Dale noted that even though the minimum data needs rely a great deal on existing data collection protocols, DOI supports the IMRP being developed, including the statistical/probabilistic approach to study design described in the IMRP. This minimum data requirement should help the GC understand the amount of information that will be needed at the end of the First Increment, as they decide on funding for monitoring and research. The Service indicated that the use of existing protocols, models and databases are necessary since at least 7-8 years will be needed until all Program actions are "online", allowing only a short time for full monitoring and research of the entire Program. The FWS will need to do some sort of assessment before the end of the First Increment; and they do not want to make a full assessment based on this small number of years of complete Program monitoring. The First Increment is seen as a transition period, from current methods/models to more statistical/probabilistic methods of study. It was noted that in practices, the methods should complement one another.
Jan McKee presented the Minimum Data Requirement Charts. Jan explained that information included in the charts was extracted from the R3-1 Tables accepted by the GC and the protocols in the IMRP. Jan indicated that the R3-1 Tables were a FWS "wish list" or maximum data needs; the charts represent less or minimum data needs to conduct an adequate review. The FWS is not saying this is all that should be collected; the FWS supports all data collection felt necessary by the GC. The Charts show the linkages between species, habitats, and monitoring needs.
Jan noted that the Program would not be held responsible for species response in evaluating compliance; however, species response will be looked at in evaluating the Program. Jan used an example species/line from each Chart for presentation purposes to show how each Chart flowed and what it was attempting to show. It was noted that the FWS is still working on Chart 2A (pallid sturgeon). Jan noted that the data needs in the charts are essentially the same as in the R3-1 Tables, with a couple of minor exceptions. Areas in the Charts that were not on the R3-1 Tables include mussels and wet meadow quantity, quality, and distribution. The FWS is concerned about mussel beds and has put these in the "other species of concern" area. Jan noted that FWS is not recommending anything different for species monitoring than what is in the current protocols. The Charts and R3-1 Tables differ mainly in where and when (how often) data are to be collected. There is also some information needs in R3-1 tables that are not on the Charts.
Dale stated that the TC would need to be clear in the recommendation to the GC on what Program's responsibility for monitoring should be. Should the TC recommend monitoring just for FWS minimum needs or should the TC recommend monitoring efforts go beyond FWS minimum needs? The benefit of additional information for the Program and the FWS and associated cost needs to be clarified. The cost of monitoring will be based to a great degree on sample size. Mark Butler noted that the GC should evaluate cost in terms of the types of decisions that will be able to be made at the end of the First Increment and then into future. It is not a FWS recommendation to collect only the information outlined in the Charts, but this is the minimum needed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of the Program.
Concern was raised that the Charts limit the information to further define pre-conceived notions (e.g., wet meadows only under whooping crane feeding). There was discussion regarding how or if sediment fits into Chart 1. Both Mark Butler and Jan noted that any sediment related milestones would be within the land and water actions. The TC discussed how adaptive management fits into the Charts. Dale stated that this is the information that drives adaptive management and that the charts are not trying to show all aspects. The TC needs to put together matrix of data needs, protocols, etc. This would be helpful for the GC to view the IMRP at a glance.
Lyman McDonald noted that the Program cannot have just a design-based decision process or just a model-based decision process; both are needed for a complete evaluation. In the next few years, data will be "pre-Program" data and then "post-Program" for 3-5 years. There will not be enough time to justify only design-based analysis. It would be a mistake to drop all historic transects from the monitoring plan. There are concerns that transects do not represent the entire river, and the TC needs to investigate transect locations. However, the Program will need some models in analysis, even if just regression analysis. Lyman noted that measured data always remains the same, but that modeled data will change as the model changes and evolves with new data. It will be important to have both. Empirical data can be used to update and confirm models. It was noted that models cannot say what happens from point A to point B in time, but models can be used to predict what may happen over a long time-period.
Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan
Dale explained that the TC should identify and elevate any IMRP policy issues to the GC tomorrow (e.g. inclusion of the minimum data needs charts in IMRP). Some of the topics discussed included how/where the IMRP fits into the overall Program document, how sediment should be addressed in the IMRP, how protocols fit into the document, and how adaptive management is addressed. The suggestion was made that if the IMRP is a component of the overall Program document that compliance monitoring should be removed. Sediment will likely be included in the land and water monitoring components. Dale explained that completed protocols should be attached to the final IMRP, probably as an appendix, and that as the Program progress there will be more protocols written. These protocols will need to be stand-alone documents, but could be added to the IMRP appendices. The TC discussed separating Program adaptive management from project adaptive management and how these parts should be included in the IMRP. There was some discussion regarding if Program objectives (10,000 acres and 130-150 kaf) can be part of adaptive management during the first increment. Mark Butler noted that the GC will need to understand what information they will have and what decisions they will be able to make during the First Increment. He noted that they would likely not have enough information until the end of the First Increment to make decisions regarding First Increment objectives. The TC discussed the perceived or real differences between adaptive management and adaptive resource management. The TC decided to use adaptive management as the more generic term and drop the use of adaptive resource management.
Another topic discussed included the idea of an independent advisory committee to the TC and GC. This concept had been discussed at previous TC meetings but differences among the TC membership had not been resolved. Dale noted that the GC appears to be planning a TC during Program, but they have not discussed an independent advisory committee or what it would to, who would sit on it, etc. If the TC is going to consider recommending independent scientific advice beyond peer review for the proposed Program, they should get guidance from the GC.
Sharon noted that the GC might want to know where the TC is in developing IMRP - how close to finalizing. The GC will need to reach agreement on monitoring categories as first step.
Lyman stated that one missing component in the IMRP is the need to carry forward measurements of historical study sites by historic methods. This should be in a separate section. Dale also noted that there would be a section that includes information from the baseline document and what information and variables should be carried forward in the Programs monitoring. It was noted that there should be a protocol for analysis of comparing historic areas/methods with contemporary data collection (i.e., how variables are measured at beginning and end of first increment with historic methods compared to similar variables measured with general monitoring protocol). Sharon noted that the revised baseline document would be to TC by May 18th. The TC decided that the baseline document will be an appendix in the IMRP and will be referenced in the baseline section of the IMRP.
The TC discussed how and if the Program will monitor species' use of Program lands. Dale noted that the Program is being evaluated based on milestones for developing habitat, but that monitoring species use can assist in evaluating the relative importance of habitat to the species. There was general agreement that the Program needs to monitor species utilization of habitat, but that it will be difficult to determine why the species use or do not use defined parcels of habitat.
It was noted that the Cooperative Agreement uses the term "habitat" for First Increment objectives and then "suitable habitat" for long-term objectives. These terms, along with available and preferred habitat, will need to be defined at some point. Jim Jenniges noted that he is not sure if the issue was ever resolved regarding spending the entire first increment evaluating Joint Management Study habitats or if other habitat will also be evaluated (e.g. sandpits). The GC assumes the Program will likely protect some sandpits and the Land Policy allows this. The specific number or location of protected habitats is unknown, but the Program will monitor as many pits as possible. The system level monitoring will also result in data on the use of sandpits by target species. The TC discussed the need to document what assumptions are used in developing management objectives (e.g., what are the assumptions used in describing the need for 1150 foot channels for whooping cranes, what are the assumptions for target flows). It was noted that most of the assumptions are contained within the Districts' biological opinion. Sharon Whitmore agreed to develop a list of assumptions used by the FWS in developing their habitat management objectives as outlined in the Joint Management Study. The TC agreed to remove the last sentence of the introductory paragraphs in the tern and plover sections of the IMRP.
TC/GC Workshop Preparation
Dale explained the purpose of the workshop will be to describe the basic sampling design used in the IMRP, the philosophy behind the IMRP, discuss the R3-1 Charts, discuss the protocol list, and elevate policy issues identified today to the GC. The ultimate goal will be to prepare the GC for the May meeting, when is hoped that the GC will decide their monitoring information needs for the Program. The TC needs this information to estimate the First Increment cost for monitoring and research. The TC agreed to distribute the ranked protocol list with the estimated budget at the workshop.
Curt Brown suggested including discussion regarding how much information will likely be collected during the first increment and when will adequate information be collected to make changes through adaptive management.
Rick Brown stated that he was not comfortable with the Executive Director presenting the R3-1 Charts, and would rather have FWS give the presentation and answer questions. He was concerned that if the Dale presented the charts then they may be perceived as a Program document and not a FWS Document. There was discussion regarding if the Charts should be present and by whom. It was decided that Dale would present the Charts with lots of clarification that the charts are from the FWS, not the Executive Director or TC.
Jan McKee explained that she would appreciate comments on the Charts, but noted that the Charts are not necessarily for approval. Comments should be submitted by May 4 to the Executive Directors office.
Adjourn - 5:10 p.m.
Future Meetings
May 14 and 15, Denver Water, Denver CO.
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