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

Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

June 28-29, 1999
CNPPID's Eagle Viewing Center
Lake Ogallala, Nebraska

Call to Order

Jay Maher called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m., welcomed the attendees, and introductions were made (attendance list attached).

Agenda and Minutes

There were no revisions to the agenda or minutes. Minutes were accepted by consensus.

Status Reports

Peer Review

Dale Strickland updated the Technical Committee (TC) on what is being done in regard to peer review of the Baseline Document. Clayton Derby has started to identify and has asked for input on potential peer reviewers. TC work schedule indicated a decision on the method of peer review of the Baseline Document would be made by September 24, 1999. This date was changed to the August 4-6 TC meeting. At the August meeting a subgroup will be formed to work with Clayton on narrowing the list of peer reviewers. Dale reminded the group that comments on the Baseline Document are due to Clayton by July 23.

Dale also updated the TC on what is being done for peer review of the Boyle Report. There will may be a role in this process for the TC.

EIS Team Needs

Dave Carlson has turned this effort over the Clayton Derby. Clayton will have the first round of comments incorporated into Dave's draft and circulated to the TC at least two weeks prior to the next TC meeting.

Work Schedule

There were no other suggested changes in addition to changing the date for deciding on method of review of the Baseline Document.

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

Mark Peyton gave a summary of the written comments received from the Governance Committee (GC) and Dave Carlson on the Least Tern Document. Comments were received from Wyoming, Ralph Morgenweck, and Brian Barels. The main comment from the GC centered on defining the purpose of the document to make sure that it is clear that it is not for compliance.

Jay Maher and Dale also gave a brief summary of the verbal comments they and others had heard from GC members. Other TC members also relayed what they had heard from GC members.

Dale Strickland noted that the GC does not know how the document fits into the process and he has developed flow charts that will try to show this. There exist concern over being held accountable for objectives that do not directly relate to milestones (i.e., the X's in the document). Jim Lutey noted that for water, compliance will likely by construction and operation of projects (Tamarack, 3-Brick). This is because water amounts will vary year by year and the long-term averages will need to be used.

Dale presented a series of flow charts depicting how and where Research and Monitoring fit into the Program. The flow charts also show how items such as the Tern Document fit into Research and Monitoring. It was noted that it is not absolutely necessary to know the specific quantity of land and water dedicated for each species (the X's) to structure the monitoring. Land and water will be acquired over time and the Governing body will likely set the Goals/Objectives that will change through a response to new information (i.e., adaptive management). Monitoring will need to be consistent throughout the Program.

Mark Peyton revised the Tern Document based on the discussion. He described the revisions and asked for comments. Revisions included combining of Objectives 1 (riverine) and 2 (non-riverine). Objective 1 was then renamed Land Measures, and Objective 3 was renamed Water Measures. He also eliminated the Management Objectives and other sections. The document is intended to show the connection between R2-1 and R3-1 and more detail may be needed to complete these Milestones.

Lyman McDonald noted that the best monitoring projects are those that are simple and last for a long period of time. Therefore, it will be necessary to develop simple, straightforward and inexpensive procedures that will allow for the collection of comparable data year after year. Lyman explained that the TC is still on the uphill progression of developing a "wish" list for monitoring and research. At some point, the TC will need to narrow that list to what will actually be feasible to accomplish.

Adjourn for June 28th - 5:00 p.m.

Call to Order for June 29th - 8:15 a.m.

Relationship of R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1 (Continued from June 28th)

The morning meeting started with a discussion on exactly what is and what is not going to be used for compliance. Dale used the flow charts that identify four major points under Monitoring and Research (peer review, institutional monitoring, program effectiveness/compliance monitoring and biological response monitoring). The FWS indicated that during the first increment, species response is not to be used for compliance. The results of monitoring will be used in the adaptive management process that will likely affect amounts of each type of land and timing of flows, but not for compliance in the first increment.

Dale indicated that there is concern over the removal of specific resource objectives from the Tern Document and other documents. It was again noted these objectives are not for compliance. The Service feels that specific management objectives are necessary and that the TC needs to make a recommendation to the GC on objectives. Lyman stated that the GC could ignore the TC recommendations, but not for long or totally without the entire process breaking down. Jim Lutey reported that Ralph Morgenweck has stated that he would like to see the TC be the scientific arm of the GC.

Dale asked that the TC spend some time to develop numbers for the initial allocation of the 10,000 acres and 130-150 KAF of water. For land, Sharon Whitmore suggested using land ownership maps developed for the Third Party Impacts study to see where land types are deficient. Currently, there is not enough information to determine how much "suitable habitat" there is because it is not defined. One possible source for this information that was suggested was to use the Joint Study as a means of defining suitable habitat.

There was some discussion on the possible scenarios for purchasing or leasing land. One method is to wait for lands to come available and then decide if they can be used in the Program. The other method discussed is more proactive in that areas and species needing certain types of lands are identified and the Program attempts to get leases/purchase lands in those areas for the target species. It is likely that the Land Committee will work with the TC in selecting Program lands. The GC will need to agree before lands are purchased/leased.

Dale suggested that in his experience it is necessary to have objectives/goals identified to guide the land acquisition process. The TC agreed to form a subgroup to work with the Land Committee in developing a habitat acquisition plan that will contain acquisition goals and priorities. The group will include Kevin Urie, Mike Fritz, Mark Czaplewski, Jim Jenniges, a representative from Wyoming, and a FWS representative. The Executive Director's office will provide example plans.

Copies of the redrafted Tern Document and copies of a draft introduction developed by Sharon Whitmore were distributed. Dale asked that the TC read over and submit comments on the document to him by noon on July 6. Clayton Derby will incorporate the comments and circulate to the TC in the afternoon of July 6. If there are any other comments they need to be to Clayton by 5 p.m. of July 6. The revised draft will be circulated to the GC on July 7.

The whooping crane group will begin work on a similar document and will provide a draft to the TC by July 23. Martha Tacha volunteered to organize and facilitate the work of the whooping crane working group. The pallid sturgeon group will also begin work on their document and provide a draft to the TC by July 23. The "other species" working group will meet before the next TC meeting and develop a strategy for developing an "other species" document.

Protocols

Dale distributed a "straw-dog" protocol for monitoring least tern and piping plover reproductive success. Dale asked that the group not do a lot of editorial changes, but look more at content and structure. The first major discussion item was on how to define the area of interest. Several different methods were suggested. It was decided that either hydrologic or geologic units would be best. Bob Swanson will provide maps showing these different areas at the next meeting.

Another major discussion point was on how to stratify the river and methods to reduce the effort/cost but still get sufficient monitoring data. It was also decided that it might be best logistically to base the survey on a standard effort per area. The area would take into consideration bank and island distance. A similar standard effort/area survey will be done for sandpits. Some sort of research to determine visibility correction will likely be needed.

Additional specifics in the protocol were discussed. Clayton will revise the protocol, prepare a preliminary budget and return the protocol to the TC by July 30.

River Study Segments

Jan McKee indicated she needed TC comments on the proposed river study segments by July 1, 1999.

Adjourn for June 29, 1999 - 12:45 p.m.

ATTENDANCE

June 28, 1999

Mark Peyton, CNPPID

Mike Fritz, NGPC

Sharon Whitmore, USFWS, Grand Island

Mark Czaplewski, Central Platte NRD

Kevin Urie, Denver Water/Colorado Water Users

Jim Lutey, USFWS, Denver

Martha Tacha, USFWS, Grand Island

Jim Jenniges, NPPD

Ken Schilz, Nebraska Water Users

Jay Maher, CNPPID

Dale Strickland, Executive Director

Clayton Derby, Executive Director's Office

Jan McKee, USFWS

Dave Felley, USFWS, Cheyenne

John Nickum, USFWS, Denver

Jeff Lucas, Lynx Spatial Technologies

Bob Swanson, USGS, WRD

Gene Zuerlein, NGPC

Lyman McDonald, WEST, Inc.

John Shadle, NPPD

June 29, 1999