Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
CNPPID Eagle Viewing Center
Ogallala, Nebraska
December 3, 2001
Agenda and Minutes
Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. No changes to the agenda were suggested. The October Technical Committee (TC) minutes were accepted with a typographical correction.
Status Reports
Governance Committee and Finance Committee - Clayton Derby reported that the Governance Committee is continuing to work on the channel dynamics issue through the joint Parsons/EIS Team effort. A December workshop is planned to discuss the topic. Rick Brown reported that the major Finance Committee (FC) topics include the Executive Director's budget and the recent audit of WEST, Inc.
Draft EIS - Sharon Whitmore reported that the draft EIS would be distributed 4-5 months after all components of the Program are developed. The major components yet to be finalized include the channel stability issue and the Habitat Protection Plan.
Cottonwood Ranch Monitoring and Research - The last channel measurements were in late October. Clayton noted that the USGS has developed a web site for display of channel data collected at Cottonwood Ranch. Paul Kinzel, USGS, asked that feedback be provided on the need for an annual report after the TC has an opportunity to review the web site.
WC Model
Sharon Whitmore reported that the model was updated for EIS analysis; however, it will not be ready for peer review until spring 2002. The goal is to have the document peer reviewed and revisions made to the final report by September 2002. Sharon noted that the USGS-BRD and FWS are working on model documentation and the entire package, model and documentation, will be distributed together. They will likely not be able to distribute just the model. Rick Brown requested a discussion of how the model will be used in analyzing the various alternatives included in the EIS.
Draft Pallid Sturgeon Plan
The TC has been coordinating with the Water Management Committee (WMC) review of the draft Pallid Sturgeon Plan. The plan details the tracking/accounting and modeling that needs to be done to determine if water can be tracked to and through the lower Platte River. The biological response piece will be determined based on the outcome of the tracking and accounting exercise. No comments from TC members were submitted and only two comments were submitted from the WMC. It was unclear how the BO and EIS will handle the pallid sturgeon issue and information obtained through completion of the Pallid Sturgeon Plan. Dale noted that if information from the Plan is needed for the EIS and BO there could be a potential scheduling problem. Sharon agreed to check on the schedule and need for information for the EIS and BO.
Protocols
Whooping Crane Protocol
The final spring 2001 Whooping Crane Survey Report was distributed. There was some discussion regarding the actual costs of the survey and how that will be factored into budgeting for future surveys. Shay provided a verbal report on the fall 2001 whooping crane survey. One crane was detected during 25 days of surveying. For detection trials, 25 decoys were placed, and approximately half were detected. Use site characteristics were measured at the one crane use site and similar measurements were conducted at 15 decoy locations to provide practice to technicians. Shay noted that because the protocol had been changed slightly from spring to fall, the databases need to be change accordingly. Data from the fall survey is currently being entered. It was also noted that there were 2 probable whooping crane sightings: one by a hunter, and one by a pilot/NGPC person. The TC requested that all sightings confirmed by Wally Jobman in the study area be included as part of the report. This should also be written into the protocol to insure consistent reports in future years.
The TC discussed how and when surveys should be stopped based on bird movements through the central Platte. One option discussed was to continue surveys until 80% of birds known to exist in the population reach Aransas or Wood-Buffalo, depending on fall or spring migration. Another option was to have the surveys run through the entire possible time period (i.e., first and last know historic dates of migration) and then allow the "stop clause" discussed in the protocol to stop surveys. Both options were rejected because of cost and logistical reasons. The TC agreed to use the 5% and 95% confidence intervals of first arrivals/departures. The TC discussed various ways the protocol could be changed to lower the budget during the Program. These include surveying less often (e.g., every other day) and using different percentiles for start/stop rules (e.g., 20% and 80% instead of 5% and 95%). For now it was agreed to survey the full time period as described in the protocol to help build the baseline.
Concern was raised that FWS guidelines on minimizing or eliminating disturbance to whooping cranes to be followed by the survey crew are more restrictive than what the general public has to comply with. The FWS was asked to review the guidelines and to allow the survey crew to approach cranes on foot if appropriately trained by the FWS or others. This was requested to assist crewmembers in verifying cranes on the river where public roads do not allow adequate access. FWS members in attendance said that they would review the guidelines.
The protocol as modified was agreed to by consensus. The TC agreed by consensus to recommend protocol implementation in spring 2002. The TC asked that an RFP be developed and distributed to potential and requesting contractors. Dale explained that the consensus protocol and budget would be sent to the Finance Committee and Governance Committee for review and approval before distribution of the RFP.
Fish Monitoring
Clayton reviewed the Fish Monitoring Subgroup recommendations from their November meeting. Some of the topics discussed included the need for monitoring/research data to be useful in making flow management decisions, monitor the spatial changes in fish community through the system, and monitoring of fish "habitat parameters". Concern was raised that monitoring the spatial changes in fish community did not include monitoring fish through the water column. It was agreed that in sandpits and maybe deeper pools in the river it might be necessary to sample through the water column using different methods to determine fish availability near the surface compared to through the area. Concern was raised regarding where habitat parameters would be measured. If temperature, turbidity, etc. are measured at gage stations it will allow for an assessment of environmental conditions but not truly the habitat parameters at fish use sites. If parameters are measured at sample locations there are issues regarding the frequency of sampling and difficulty of sampling. It was recognized that an overall monitoring program might not provide sufficient data for EA management, but that it will show how fish and their habitat change over time. It may be necessary to conduct specific measurements at predefined conditions to help make management decisions. For example, a protocol might state that a sample be taken when flows reach X or immediately after a hot day. This limits inference and may require additional research to confirm its utility in making management decisions. Also, the monitoring may show areas for further research. It was generally agreed that purpose statements for monitoring or research in the IMRP need to be clarified. Areas that could be used for defining the purpose include the R3-1 Tables and target flows.
Tern and Plover
Shay Howlin distributed an example database and updated data sheets for review. Comments on either should be sent directly to Shay. There was discussion regarding the number of datasheets that are required in the protocol. There was concern that there are too many datasheets to keep track of if there is an increase in the number of birds. The Executive Director's office was asked to revise the protocol and bring suggested modifications to the subgroup and TC for a focused discussion. The TC recognized the need to get a protocol that can be effectively implemented. A Tern and Plover Subgroup meeting was scheduled for February 19 in Kearney.
Vegetation monitoring at Cottonwood Ranch and Jeffrey Island
Clayton explained that WEST recently distributed the draft report conducted for the Districts on vegetation monitoring at Cottonwood Ranch and Jeffrey Island. The final report, minus the extensive data section, will be provided to the TC when it is finalized. Since the work was done using the TC protocol, information gathered will be useful in determining any changes the CA protocol. Dale Strickland noted that one area that needs to be reviewed is the level of effort. The TC asked that Beth Lack, project leader, be available at the next meeting TC meeting in Cheyenne to discuss the work.
In-channel vegetation monitoring
The TC is waiting for completion of the Parsons/EIS Team work before proceeding on developing monitoring and/or research protocols for in channel vegetation monitoring.
Database
Dale is continuing to work with USGS-BRD personnel from Ft. Collins in developing a framework and rough budget for development and maintenance of a Program database. Information will continue to be presented to the TC as it comes available. Sharon Whitmore noted that the aerial photos taken in 2001 are in a locked cabinet at the FWS office in Grand Island.
December 4, 2001
R1-1 Baseline Document
Clayton reminded the TC that they had reviewed the whooping crane and introduction sections developed by the Executive Director's office a their last meeting. More complete drafts will be distributed before the next meeting. The TC agreed to send comment on sections 6,7, and 8.1 of the May 30, 2001, draft by January 11.
Glossary
The Executive Director's office put together a preliminary list of terms and distributed it to all committees for review. The GC will decide on a process for defining terms, one options is to have the Executive Director's office work with individuals to develop initial draft definitions and then have the appropriate committee review. The TC spent some time going through the draft list of terms and identifying other terms that need to be included.
Habitat Protection Plan Review Process
Dale reminded the group that the TC had delegated authority to several TC members on the HPP Task Force with the understanding that it would be brought back to the TC for final approval. TC agreed that this should continue as the process. There are still lots of pieces of the HPP being worked on by other groups and these will be added as they come available. The GC must approve the document for EIS/ESA analysis so it will be necessary to begin moving the document up through the committees soon.
Peer Review Work Plan
Mark Czaplewski reviewed what he and Kevin Urie had done in revising the Work Plan in 2000. The idea is to list the documents and proposed budgets recommended for peer review that are known to date. This information will help in developing the Program budget. The TC will provide a list of items that they feel should be peer reviewed before the Program and what items need to be peer reviewed during Program to Clayton by January 31, 2002. Dale will work with the other committee chairs to get their input on items for peer review.
Budget
The TC reviewed possible monitoring and research needs for the remainder of the CA to assist in budgeting the remaining "unallocated" funds. The TC identified the whooping crane spring and fall surveys, tern and plover survey, aerial photos, fish monitoring, in channel vegetation, and database management. Other possible areas are testing of the General Monitoring protocol after review and revision based on work at Cottonwood Ranch and Jeffrey Island as well as possibly developing a means to determine wet meadow quality. It was noted that for Program budgeting the GC should consider paying for a monitoring/research access easement to sites, where necessary. This would insure that long-term monitoring could continue at the same sites.
Dale noted that the general strategy has been to get monitoring and known research protocols together by Program initiation. Other research protocols will be developed as needed during the Program.
IMRP schedule
Dale noted that the GC and Drafting Committee are referring to the IMRP a lot in documents that are currently being developed. The TC needs to try and complete another draft of the IMRP for GC review in early 2002. The TC spent some time discussing how adaptive management will be addressed in the IMRP as well as other possible documents. Dale noted that the Program document would have a "habitat flexibility" section that will describe adaptive management at a policy level. Details will be in the IMRP or a stand-alone part, yet to be determined. Concern was raised that most CA documents are discussing what can change (e.g., Program objectives of 10,000 acres and 130-150 kaf cannot change), but not how things can (e.g., when during the Program can various items change). The Executive Director's office will make modifications to the IMRP by February 1, 2002, for review by the TC at their next meeting.
Cooperative Agreement Review of Draft EIS
The TC spent sometime discussing possible options for review of the DEIS and BO by the proponent (i.e., GC). Dale noted that the proponent generally provides a general response to the draft. It was noted that it might be exceedingly difficult for the GC to provide a unified response but that all participants will provide individual responses regardless of if the GC responds. It will be important to insure that the EIS and BO conduct a proper analysis of the different components and that they have the correct interpretations and assumptions included. There was general agreement that there may be a role for the technical individuals involved but that all parties will need to see the DEIS before determining how a review will be conducted.
Future Meetings
February 19-20, 2002 - Tern and Plover Subgroup on 19th and yet to be determined subgroup on the 20th
February 25-26, 2002 - TC meeting at the Eagle viewing center, Ogallala
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