Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

Call to Order

In Jay Maher's absence, Dale Strickland called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and introductions were made.

Minutes from the January meeting were discussed and revised. The minutes were revised to indicate that Colorado does not support peer review of target flows or any of the components of target flows at this time. The minutes were also revised to indicate that the fact that the Environmental Account will not be used to cause flooding. This is a Cooperative Agreement position and not just a FWS position. Finally, the minutes were revised to indicate that "Review of Existing and New Information" will be completed for each species throughout the program, but no protocol is required for this review. After revisions, the minutes were accepted by consensus that they were an accurate representation of the January Technical Committee (TC) meeting.

Consensus

During revisions to the January minutes, the issue of consensus and what is meant by consensus was brought up and discussed. Dale indicated his interpretation of the Governance Committee's (GC) definition of consensus is unanimous consent. He also indicated that when the group is asked for consensus, silence is assumed to be approval. Several participants at the meeting noted that it is possible that after consensus is reached on issues, review with their constituents' may result in a change in their position. Sharon Whitmore suggested possibly using a flip chart to track consensus issues. Dale and Jay will try to maintain sensitivity to each member's constituents before a call for consensus.

Peer Review

Peer Review Work Plan

Clayton Derby went over the revisions to the Work Plan based on GC comments. The comments included changing the dates for peer review of target flows and their components to "date uncertain." Dale mentioned that the Work Plan as written would be used to start the peer review process but that it should be viewed as a work in progress.

R1-1

Jim Lutey briefly discussed the baseline document from Woodward-Clyde and noted that the FWS will be sending the document back to the contractor for revisions. The contractor will need time for doing the revisions and the TC may be able to review the document by mid-May. Hopefully, the document will be ready for peer review by mid-June. There was some discussion regarding the necessity to peer review the supporting documents used or if peer review of the baseline document will be sufficient.

Subcommittee Reports

Charter

Jan McKee handed out a draft copy of the charter that she had drafted and Clayton handed out an earlier copy of the charter from Jay Maher. Jan lead the discussion regarding the charter. Jan reported that she had taken Jay's earlier version and reformatted it to be consistent with the Water Committee's charter. Significant discussion and "word smithing" followed. There were many changes and Jan recorded them on her draft copy. The changes included, but were not limited to, need for defining a quorum, consensus versus vote, meeting locations, and including only the current membership list and not the list from September 12, 1997. Jan made the revisions to the draft charter for distribution the next morning.

At the start of the TC meeting on March 3, Jan handed out the reworked charter. Jan went through it again quickly and pointed out where clarification and work were still needed. These areas included defining the Executive Director's responsibilities with the TC, need for a quorum, removal of a member for missing three consecutive meetings, and election of a chair. Revisions were made and Jan incorporated them into the charter. There was consensus that Jay take the charter to the GC after checking with certain individuals if they want to stay involved with the TC.

Informal Peer Review

Jim Jenniges and Sharon Whitmore gave brief updates on the informal peer review of whooping crane and pallid sturgeon research and monitoring needs. Jim noted that no informal reviews had been done for cranes and Sharon noted that the pallid sturgeon group had received informal review earlier in the process and had incorporated the ideas into the monitoring and research needs document.

Adaptive Management

Dale gave a short presentation on the Adaptive Management process that included two examples of Adaptive Management. Dale then discussed how Adaptive Management might work with the Cooperative Agreement and Program. During this discussion, Jim Lutey asked for comments on the FWS Milestones for the first increment document.

Adjourn for March 2, 6:00 p.m.

Call to Order for March 3, 8:15 a.m.

Subcommittee Reports (continued)

Charter

The March 3 meeting started with a discussion to finish revision to the charter (see above).

Relationship of R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1

Jim Lutey and Jan McKee lead this discussion. Jim handed out a draft "Relationship of R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1". He pointed out that P3-1 should be considered integral to these other milestones. During discussions it was noted that parts of W14-1 are also important for R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1. Jim briefly went over R1-1 and noted that there are existing baseline studies that are likely to continue and there will be a need to develop other studies for monitoring and research. It will be important to coordinate the efforts of developing R1-1 with the TC in developing R2-1. There was a discussion regarding the duties of the TC for R2-1 and the importance of determining which habitat and species parameters need to be monitored.

Jim continued the discussion into R3-1. Dale Strickland noted that the Cooperative Agreement is specific in its goals, with the goal for cranes, terns, and plovers centering on habitat. There was discussion on P3-1, development of milestones for the first increment. There was concern that development of P3-1 would lead to two sets of protocols, one for P3-1 and one for R2-1. The TC and FWS will need to work together to make sure that sufficient protocols are developed.

Jan McKee went through a flow chart for least terns that she and others with FWS had worked on that shows the process for developing R3-1. Similar flow charts will be developed for all four species. Part of R3-1 development is determining what needs to be monitored for examining species response. Mark Peyton and others requested that members from the Working Groups or the entire TC be involved with this process because this will directly lead to development of protocols (R2-1). It was decided that the Tern and Plover Working Group will meet with members of the FWS that are developing R3-1 on April 6 and 7 in Grand Island, Nebraska.

The need for a work schedule for the TC was discussed. The work schedule will outline tasks and progress to date, work remaining, and a completion date. Dale, Jim Lutey, and Jay Maher will put a schedule together before the April TC meeting.

Protocols

The TC needs to report to the GC on their work progress for R2-1. For part of this, Clayton will create a document by removing most of the wording from the Monitoring Protocol Categories document and make it similar in format to the Research Protocol Categories document. The report to the GC should also include Research Protocol Categories, Protocol Definition/Outline, Prioritized list for research and monitoring needs, and possibly other documents.

Discussion on Prioritization and Identification of specific protocols was delayed until Working Groups go through the process with the FWS of determining parameters to measure species response.

Clayton reviewed the latest comments and additions to the Protocol Definition/Outline document. Those comments were received from John Shields. Jim Doyle and others noted that GC members might not be seeing the whole picture when it comes to this document and how important it may be.

EIS Needs

Dale briefly discussed the differences between the EIS Team needs and the Program needs in regard to the TC. The EIS Team does not need specifics, whereas the Program does. Sharon Whitmore handed out a draft document by Dave Carlson. The document outlined what the TC needs to provide for the EIS Team. It was decided that the TC should review the document and be prepared to comment at the next meeting.

GIS Group

Jeff Lucas reported that the GIS group has been meeting and is prepared to give a presentation at the next TC meeting.

Upcoming Meetings

The agenda for the next meeting was discussed and will consist largely of the results from the FWS and Working Group meeting on April 6 and 7 in Grand Island.

The next TC meeting will be in Cheyenne, Wyoming, at the Hershler Building, Room 1699. The meeting will be from 1-5 p.m. on April 13 and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on April 14.

The May meeting will be May 17 and 18 in Ogallala, Nebraska. Times and location will be finalized at the April meeting.

Attendance
March 2, 1999
Name

Mark Czaplewski, Central Platte NRD
Jeff Lucas, Tri-Basin NRD
Jim Lutey, USFWS, Denver
Jim Doyle, Nebraska Water Users
Bob Swanson, USGS, North Platte
David Felley, USFWS, Cheyenne
Sharon Whitmore, USFWS, Grand Island
Dave Harpman, USBR, Denver
Ron Sutton, USBR, Denver
Jon Wade, WY Water Development Comm
Kevin Urie, Denver Water, CO Water Users
Jan McKee, USFWS, Denver
John Nickum, USFWS, Denver
Mark Peyton, CNPPID
Jim Jenniges, NPPD
Dale Strickland, Executive Director
Clayton Derby, Executive Director
Charlene Dougherty, USBR, Denver

Name

Mark Czaplewski, Central Platte NRD
Jeff Lucas, Tri-Basin NRD
Jim Lutey, USFWS, Denver
Jim Doyle, Nebraska Water Users
Bob Swanson, USGS, North Platte
David Felley, USFWS, Cheyenne
Sharon Whitmore, USFWS, Grand Island
Jon Wade, WY Water Development Comm
Kevin Urie, Denver Water, CO Water Users
Jan McKee, USFWS, Denver
John Nickum, USFWS, Denver
Mark Peyton, CNPPID
Jim Jenniges, NPPD
Dale Strickland, Executive Director
Clayton Derby, Executive Director

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