---

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

---

Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
July 25, 2001
NPPD Office
North Platte NE

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. and welcomed the group. There were no agenda changes. Changes to the June TC minutes were suggested and the minutes were accepted by consensus as modified.

Sharon Whitmore indicated during review of the June minutes that the minutes can be interpreted such that the FWS had agreed to survey sandpits for terns and plovers, and then did not. The FWS never committed to surveying any sandpits for terns and plovers during implementation of the protocol in 2001. The FWS agreed to assist in surveying the river between Chapman and the Kearney Diversion only, but some individuals assumed the FWS was going to implement the entire protocol, both river and sandpits. Sandpits along the river between Odessa and Gibbon were not surveyed in 2001 according to the TC protocol. An attempt was made to coordinate efforts with the NRCS and NGPC but their personnel time commitments did not allow them to complete the surveys.

Status Reports

Governance and Finance Committees

Dale Strickland reported that the Finance Committee (FC) and Governance Committee (GC) approved a budget amendment to the Executive Director's budget for calendar year 2001. The original budget was prepared assuming there would be fewer meetings, at the direction of the FC and GC. Don Ament also asked Dale to clarify his scope of work. The GC recognized that the Executive Director serves the GC and all services that they request are covered under the existing scope of work. Dale noted that the idea of a fall whooping crane survey was brought up at the FC meeting and that they were very supportive. The GC also continues to discuss the Parsons sediment study.

Aerial Photography

Clayton Derby explained three items related to aerial photography to be addressed by the TC; 1) storage of prints and enlargements, 2) storage of original film, and 3) requests for duplicate prints and/or film. Regarding storage of prints and enlargements, Sharon Whitmore volunteered space at the FWS Office in Grand Island. Clayton noted that the Central Platte NRD office in Grand Island also offered their facility to store the photographs. The TC decided to pursue storage at the FWS office. The Cooperative Agreement will need to purchase a large, fire resistant, map file cabinet and lock. The TC also asked the Executive Director's office to investigate the possibility of storing one set of print at the USGS in Rolla, Missouri. Dale noted that the GC had asked the TC to develop a recommendation for storage of original film. The TC recommends that original film be stored at Horizons, Inc., Rapid City, SD (contractor that captured both the B/W and CIR photography) at least until a Program office is established. This will help facilitate duplication of film or prints for any interested Cooperative Agreement party. Clayton reported that he received price quotes for duplication of both film and prints for the black and white photos and color-infrared photos. Costs for black and white are: film, $2025; prints, $1348. Costs for color-infrared photos are: film, $3800; prints, $2,764.50. Interested parties were asked to make arrangements with the Executive Director's office for any duplicates. Clayton also reported that the color-infrared photographs are being reviewed by the USGS before enlargements are made.

Cottonwood Ranch Property

Jim Jenniges reported that he is unaware of any monitoring and research activity conducted by Randy Parker at Cottonwood Ranch since the TC field trip in June. Jim did report that work on Phase II, wetland restoration and swale creation, has been progressing and will be completed this year.

Tern and Plover Monitoring

Jim Jenniges reported that he has completed the surveys on the river and sandpits in his designated areas. Jim noted that this was an especially good year for reproduction at managed sandpits. However, no nests were found on river islands and only one nest was found at an unmanaged sandpit. Sharon Whitmore reported that the FWS has completed surveys along their designated portion of the river. They located only foraging tern and plovers during the three surveys. Mark Czaplewski reported that he had completed surveys of sandpits in his designated area and only located two nesting terns at one sandpit in June. Mark noted that several pit operators expressed concerns regarding liability issues if surveyors did not have a mine safety-training card. The TC agreed that the issue should be investigated with the Mine Safety branch of OSHA to determine exactly what training is needed for next year. All survey parties should forward their data to Clayton Derby and Shay Howlin for incorporation into the final report by August 15 or when they have completed monitoring birds. A tentative Tern and Plover Subgroup meeting was scheduled for August 30 at NPPD in Kearney. Parties involved in the surveys were asked to provide a bulleted list of concerns or recommendations to Clayton Derby by August 23 for circulation to the entire group. Also, surveyors were asked to estimate the time they spent conducting the monitoring in 2001.

General Monitoring

Mark Peyton noted that vegetation monitoring being conducted by the Districts at Jeffrey Island and Cottonwood Ranch, per the TC General Monitoring Protocol, would be completed shortly. Dale and Mark also reminded the group that the contractor is implementing both the Program Level and Management Specific level monitoring on the Cottonwood Ranch Phase I tree removal site. This will allow for comparisons between the two methods. Dale noted that the work is progressing slower than expected based on the literature estimates and this will need to be considered in developing future work plans and in modifying the protocol.

Whooping Cranes

Shay Howlin reported that she has begun developing the database. The database needs to be refined to keep track of individual sightings as well as the estimated number of individual birds using the area. Shay is continuing to work with Gary Lingle to finalize his report and fill in holes in the data. Hardcopies of the three databases developed were distributed for discussion - flight log database, activity log database, and habitat use database. During discussion of the flight log database, Shay explained that the information on each flight is recorded regardless of sightings of whooping cranes during the survey. Any measurement of crane use is recorded in other databases. Problems identified in getting the data into the databases included a lack of documentation of all flights and the use of landowner names to identify crane use sites. The TC recommended that legal descriptions be used.

For the activity log and habitat use databases, Shay noted that these could ultimately be combined into one database. Issues regarding these databases include needing to define what constitutes a new use location (e.g., should four spots within same corn field equal one use site or four) and the difficulty in interpreting the number of crane groups observed. In the future the surveyors will need to keep track of the individual sighting number and keep notes on whether or not they believe it is the same cranes as previous sightings and why.

The TC spent considerable time discussing the need to coordinate efforts with the Cooperative Agreement/Program and the FWS in determining the number of "confirmed" sightings. Dave Carlson briefly explained that currently Wally Jobman makes a professional judgment based on the information available. Concern was raised that the Program should not change their data if the FWS does not arrive at the same number of whooping cranes using the area as does the Program, but some effort needs to occur to understand and document any discrepancies. Shay reminded the group that the protocol is not structured to estimate the number of birds using the area but to investigate the habitat used by the cranes located. A Whooping Crane subgroup meeting to discuss this issue and identify any changes in the protocol needed for fall implementation was tentatively scheduled for August 31 at NPPD in Kearney. Jim suggested that the literature be researched for methods used to keep track of unmarked birds and estimate total number of birds.

Baseline Review Process

Paul Tebbel asked Dale to lead the discussion. Mark Butler commented that the FWS wants to move the review/revision process forward and get the Baseline Document incorporated as a Program document, but that it is not on any critical path for the EIS or BO. Mark also noted that the FWS is willing to be the "keeper" of the Baseline and to make copies for distribution when it is finalized. There was general agreement that the Baseline Document should go forward to the GC as a Cooperative Agreement/Program document in the IMRP as opposed as a FWS document. To accomplish this an adequate review and revision schedule is needed.

The TC spent considerable time discussing how and if the Baseline Document should be independently peer reviewed. Three different possibilities for peer reviewing the Document were discussed; 1) review of just the Baseline, 2) review of individual sections of the Baseline when corresponding protocols and other information are available, 3) peer review of the complete IMRP containing the Baseline, R3-1 information, and completed protocols. Dave Carlson noted that the Baseline Document attempts to track with the information contained in the R3-1 Charts and Tables. If the TC decides that information should be collected during the Program that is not part of the R3-1 Charts, those topics will need to be researched and any available data added to the Baseline Document.

The TC agreed that they would review the Baseline Document in sections, beginning with the least tern/piping plover and whooping crane sections at the September meeting. Comments on these sections are due to Clayton Derby, for distribution to the entire TC, by August 14. Mark Butler commented that the FWS would accept comments on other sections as well. The FWS is not expected to address the comments before the September meeting. The Executive Director's office will compare and contrast the Baseline Document with the protocols written to date and the R3-1 Charts/Tables. This will help identify any potential holes in these documents. The TC generally agreed that the Baseline, R3-1 information, and protocols should follow the same general format when incorporated in the IMRP so that all parties can clearly see the flow of information. If issues cannot be resolved at the August meeting and subsequent TC review meetings, a workshop will be held to discuss and address these issues with the GC and others.

Concern was raised that if the Baseline identifies what will be monitored during the Program, some GC members are likely not to agree with all of the topics addressed in the Baseline Document (e.g., contaminates). The Executive Director's office was tasked with reviewing past TC and GC meeting minutes and other documents as related to the purpose and use of the Baseline Document. This will be the first Baseline discussion item on the September agenda. Mark Butler explained that past discussions included revising the "Woodward-Clyde" document as a compendium of information. Mark noted that the current Baseline Document is more than this compendium. Dale reviewed milestone R1-1 and noted that the milestone can be interpreted to mean that the baseline will contain those items that will be measured during the Program. If the current Baseline contains topics that the Program does not desire to measure, this discrepancy will need to be clarified for the purpose of monitoring and research.

Pallid Sturgeon Plan

Mark Butler explained that the draft "Plan for Testing the Ability of the Program to Affect Lower Platte River Flows" was developed in response to milestone R1a-EXT. The draft was distributed to both the TC and Water Management Committee for review. The TC agreed to review the document and provide comments to Clayton Derby, for distribution to the entire TC, by August 31. The topic will be discussed at the September TC meeting, and likely at the September Water Management Committee meeting. If topics are raised that cannot be addressed at the meetings a specific workshop will be scheduled. Mark commented that the FWS and BOR have hydrologists available and able to complete the work within approximately two months after getting agreement on the Plan.

Protocols

Fall Whooping Crane Survey

Dale explained that the TC should decide if a fall whooping crane survey will be conducted. Currently the Executive Director's office is working with the spring survey contractor to finalize his report. The Executive Director's office will also summarize the data and provide a report. This information will be available for the TC's consideration in modifying the protocol before the fall survey. Paul Tebbel called for and received TC consensus on implementing the fall survey. The TC agreed that the fall survey should be implemented by the Executive Director's office for timing considerations as well as to receive input from two different contractors regarding protocol implementation and changes. It was suggested that future protocol implementations should secure one contractor to complete the fieldwork, enter the data into the Program database, summarize the data, and write a final report. A pre-proposal will be presented to the FC on August 30 based on the current protocol. A final proposal and budget will be presented to the FC and GC during their September meetings and will include the TC protocol modifications.

In-Channel Vegetation Monitoring and Research

Shay Howlin provided a handout listing possible research and monitoring questions. It was noted that the In-Channel Vegetation Subgroup had met but got bogged down in the details of measuring vegetation. Shay asked that the TC review the basic questions to insure that they are indeed the correct questions. The TC noted that research should to be designed such that both EA augmented and natural pulse flows can be investigated. It was suggested that all of the pulse flow monitoring and research questions (i.e., those to investigate pulse flows vs. mechanical removal methods) be included in one protocol with the research issues as a subset to the monitoring questions. The research will be a spatial and/or temporal intensification of the monitoring transects/plots with the same methods used. There was some discussion regarding whether or not vegetation should be identified to species or if simply a presence/absence recording is sufficient. The TC recommended that the literature be referenced to determine if only a small number of species should be identified along with an "other" category (e.g., willow, cottonwood, loosestrife, other). The subgroup needs to reconvene to address specific issues of monitoring and research.

Fish Monitoring and Research

Shay distributed a handout describing the purpose of pulse flows outlined in past FWS documents. The handout also identified several monitoring and research questions based on the FWS information. The TC was asked to provide comments to Clayton Derby by August 14.

Election of Chair

Paul Tebbel was unanimously reelected for another year as TC Chair. Paul stated that he will be asking TC members to provide the TC report at GC meetings when he is unable to attend.

Future Meetings

August 22, 1-5 p.m. and August 23, 8 a.m. - 12 p.m., USFWS Office Third Floor Conference Room, Denver, CO

September 11, 1-5 p.m. and September 12, 8 a.m. - 12 p.m., Cheyenne, WY. Site TBD

Adjourn - 3:45 p.m.