---

See other minutes at: :Governance Committee / Land Committee / Water Management Committee / Water Action Plan Committee

---

Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

May 14-15, 2001
Denver Water
Denver CO

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:25 p.m. and welcomed the group. There were no agenda changes. Changes to the April TC minutes were suggested and the minutes were accepted by consensus as modified.

Protocols

General Monitoring

Clayton Derby and Shay Howlin provided the update. Most components of the protocol are being implemented for testing this year. The protocol will be revised as needed after testing.

Aerial Photography

Dale Strickland reported that the Financial Committee (FC) has approved the CIR aerial photography for implementation. A request for proposal (RFP) was distributed contingent on Governance Committee (GC) funding. Proposals are due May 14 from prospective bidders.

Clayton Derby noted that during distribution of the RFP one potential bidder discussed the possibilities of conducting digital photography. The potential bidder noted that resolution continues to improve and costs continue to be reduced. The TC agreed that a presentation on the topic by USGS or similar personal should be arranged for a future meeting.

Flow Related Research Protocols

Sharon provided an update regarding a proposed evaluation of the effects of an Environmental Account augmented pulse flow. The planned pulse will most likely take place next spring, when a full TC protocol is in place. Sharon noted that she had been watching how a natural pulse flow from the South Platte River was moving through the system. Sharon explained that a flow of 6000 cfs in the South Platte in Colorado was barely detectable at Grand Island according to gage records. Concern has also been raised regarding the planned use of the Environmental Account in a pulse that could impact nesting terns and plovers.

In-Channel Vegetation

Shay provided a verbal description of the protocol outline. Currently the protocol outline envisions monitoring vegetation removal regardless of removal mechanism: EA, natural flow, ice, etc. Issues for resolution include, how long should each location be monitored? How should new plots be added (e.g., if old plots disappear)? How should the sample plots be located ? How do structures such as bridges impact the flow, and should areas near such "hard points" be included or excluded?

There was general agreement that some sort of unbiased sampling should be conducted throughout the system regardless of how sample location relates to bridges, dikes, etc. The TC discussed methods for stratifying the system if there is agreement that one stratum should be sampled more intensively (e.g., areas away from bridges vs. areas near bridges).

There was a discussion regarding what exactly the question should be for the monitoring and/or research to address. Once questions are clearly identified the TC will be able to develop appropriate methods to address the issues. For example maybe only aerial photography is needed if the question is simply is there vegetation encroachment during the First Increment. If more detailed information is need (e.g., vegetation species, when it established, what elevation, etc) other methods will be required. There will likely be different questions/issues for different scales of concern. For monitoring the TC agreed that the area of interested is the entire study area between Lexington and Chapman. If field data are collected the protocol will need to specify relatively easy to measure hydrologic covariates that will be useful for the Program and EA manager.

There was general agreement that this or some other protocol needs to monitor distribution and abundance of in-channel vegetation throughout the system along with research to see what/ how seedlings are removed. This type of information will help identify when and how much water should be released and for how long to remove vegetation. A subgroup of Sharon Whitmore, Jim Jenniges, Dave Carlson, Paul Currier/Bob Henszey, and the Executive Director's office was formed to clearly identify the purpose to be addressed by this protocol and to start drafting the protocol.

Database

Dale Strickland explained that he met with the USGS-BRD in Fort Collins, Colorado to get some ideas about the cost of a database management system for the proposed Program. They discussed the types of services the USGS can provide, including the Java/Oracle web-based database system and GIS interactive mapping. Possibilities exist for remote data management, stand-alone modules, on-line training modules, and the ability to take care of budgets, addresses, and other administrative issues. Dale explained to the USGS personnel what the Program is expecting, and the USGS identified several questions they would need resolved before more detailed cost estimates could be provided. They did provide a very preliminary estimate of $100,000 to $150,000 per year. Dale explained that several options for building and maintaining the database exist including a sole source arrangement with some group like the USGS, bidding the project to an outside contractor, or the proper Program staff could build and maintain the system. Dale noted that the USGS is willing to work with the TC to obtain a more precise cost estimate and develop a good outline of what is reasonable and possible regardless of if they are selected to conduct the work.

Dale requested input on what is expected of the database: Web based, public access, level of security necessary, mapping tools and GIS integration, critical background themes needed (what's available, what new is needed), time frame for development, who will oversee the development of the database, etc. With answers to these questions Dale will return to USGS for a better cost estimate before the July GC meeting. Dale will draft a letter to the TC with these questions. The TC will need to maintain a long-term system, and keep the system updated regardless of what entity develops or maintains the system. The TC agreed that Dale should continue discussion with the USGS.

Randy Parker noted that Mike Starbuck, USGS Mapping Center in Rolla Missouri, provides a general database for lots of Platte information. It will likely be possible to provide links to other sites from the Program's database not need to have to have all the information in one location.

IMRP/Budget

Clayton Derby provided an update on how the protocol list/budget has been revised since the last meeting. Dale led a discussion on where the TC should go from this point and the need to provide the GC with a cost estimate. Sharon noted that she had reviewed the list and it appears that all of the FWS minimum data needs, as identified by the charts prepared by Jan McKee, are included on the current protocol list. The TC agreed that when the information is provided to the GC, a memo should be included that points out that the protocol list and budget contains both TC consensus items and FWS minimum data needs. The budget should contain subtotals for monitoring activities and research activities.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Update

Paul Kinzel and Randy Parker provided the update on their monitoring and research activity on Cottonwood Ranch Property. They have completed the general monitoring cross-sections, revisited the temporally intensive cross-sections, sediment sample processing is continuing, and the gage will be installed soon. They also noted that the information related to the project would soon be available on a USGS web site. Paul and Randy discussed some of their experiences in conducting the general monitoring cross-sections. They noted that land ownership can be difficult to determine and that there are typically multiple landowners for each cross-section. Paul noted that the GPS unit did not function within the cottonwood forest and therefore a GPS supported survey is restricted to in-channel and other cleared areas.

May 15, 2001

Aerial Photography Proposals

Clayton updated the TC regarding proposals received by the closing date of May 14, 2001. Three proposal were received and ranged in estimated cost from $24,000 - $38,000. All proposals were above the initial cost estimate and the amount approved by the Finance Committee. The TC asked that Dale Strickland review the issue with the Finance Committee and ask that the approved amount be increased to include the lower two bids. The TC recommended selecting the low bid assuming that references are positive. The TC agreed that the Executive Director's office should select the contractor within the standards established by the TC and Finance Committee.

Protocol list/Budget - continued

The TC went over the draft protocol list and associated budget in detail and discussed several different topics. One topic discussed included the possible need to include some sort of "contingency" budget for unforeseen monitoring and research. The TC decided not to request a contingency budget but would indicate to the GC that research categories would likely change as more information is collected. The TC also discussed if amounts of suitable habitat for the target species would be determined on a regular basis during the Program with the given protocols (e.g., will the amount of tern and plover habitat be calculated annually?). The GC may want this information to address the question of how the Program is impacting species habitat. Dale explained that the protocols would measure the various components of suitable habitat. This will allow the calculation in future years of suitable habitat for any year with data on habitat components, based on the definition of suitable habitat at that time. Curt Brown asked for clarification on how or if the cost estimates include report preparation and data analysis. It was explained that the estimates include data analysis and report preparation for each individual task, but that it is assumed that the Program staff will be charged with, and funded, to compile overall reports on the monitoring and research effort.

The TC developed a list of assumptions that will be included in a transmittal memo to the GC with the protocol list and budget.

2) Based on 2001 dollars

3) Budget changes are expected through protocol development

4) List assumes Program staff will provide annual summary report and IMRP coordination and logistics.

5) Budget table is a work in progress.

6) Tables encompass TC protocols and FWS minimum data needs.

7) List includes system level monitoring, Program/Project level monitoring and research. The research topics and budget are likely to change as information is collected.

8) The fully funded IMRP will provide information necessary to evaluate the Program after the First Increment and covers FWS minimum needs.

The TC agreed to send the protocol list and budget to the GC and recommend full funding for the monitoring and research.

Status Reports

Governance and Finance Committees

Clayton Derby noted that the Finance Committee has approved the CIR aerial photography budget and that the GC will be asked for concurrence at the May 17 meeting. The Finance Committee approved the pre-proposal for testing the management specific portion of the General Monitoring Protocol. The full proposal will be discussed at their May 16 meeting and the GC will be asked for concurrence at their May 17 meeting if approved by the Finance Committee.

Black and White Aerial Photography

Clayton reported that Horizons had completed the aerial photography and that the 9-inch contact prints had been accepted. Horizons has been authorized to complete the enlargements.

Whooping Cranes

Clayton read a brief report prepared by Gary Lingle. The TC requested that Gary be invited to the June TC meeting to provide an oral report and address TC questions. Gary's written report will be forwarded to the TC prior to the June meeting. Copies of the Nebraska and National Wildlife Federation's Whooper Watch final report were distributed. Concern was raised that all reports need to use the same terminology when referencing confirmed sightings, probable sightings, etc. Sharon noted that she would obtain all of the Platte River whooping crane sighting information from Wally Jobman for inclusion in the final report and for distribution to the TC. The TC and Executive Director's office will work closely with the TC on final report preparation and protocol revision.

Tern and Plover Monitoring

The FWS started surveying the Platte River between Chapman and the Kearney Diversion on May 14. Mark Czaplewski noted that he has also started checking sandpits along the river between Chapman and Gibbon. Jim Jenniges will survey the river between the Kearney Diversion and Lexington and will check sandpits between Odessa and Lexington next week. Clayton noted that sandpits between Odessa and Gibbon are currently not being surveyed. He has contacted Paul Obert, NRCS, and Mike Fritz, NGPC, to inquire about their availability in helping in this area.

NGPC Tern, Plover, and Whooping Crane Data Review Update

Mike Fritz reported that the NGPC has been working on two reports. One report compiles all whooping crane migrational data from the U.S. The other report compiles all the tern and plover data from Nebraska. Mike noted that the tern and plover data contains lots of gaps since most information is from the international survey that is only conducted periodically. The reports will be available in the next couple of months.

Habitat Protection Plan

The HPP Task Force met on May 9, 2001. They are working on re-drafting the Plan. As part of the redraft the FWS will be developing a Habitat Suitability Criteria section. The next meeting is planned for June 14th. The TC asked that an upcoming TC meeting include a discussion of the Habitat Suitability Criteria included in the HPP.

Baseline

Sharon provided an outline of the Baseline Document as currently drafted by the FWS. The current schedule is to make the document available by May 25th. Some TC members voiced concern that the timeframe provided by the FWS for review of the document was inadequate. The FWS is still waiting on portions of the hydrology, geomorphology, and water quality sections.

Future Meetings

June 26, 2001, 1-5 p.m. CDT - Field trip to visit recently completed and ongoing CA funded monitoring and research activities. Meet at NPPD in Kearney.

June 27, 2001, 8 a.m. - 12 p.m. CDT, Ockinga Hall, UNK Campus, Kearney

July 25, 2001, 10 a.m. - 5 p.m., NPPD Office, North Platte, Nebraska - topics to include Habitat Suitability Criteria and Baseline

Adjourn - 11:50 a.m.