---

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

---

Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

December 7-8, 1999
NPPD's Maloney Lake Lodge
North Platte, Nebraska

 

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. on December 7 and welcomed the group. Paul noted that a proposal from Larry Wells would be moved up on the agenda. No changes to the minutes were made and they were accepted by consensus.

Status Reports

Habitat Acquisition Planning Task Force

Mark Czaplewski updated the group on activities of the Task Force. Mark briefly discussed comments that were received on the draft outline submitted to the Governance Committee (GC) and how the comments were incorporated into the document. The Habitat Protection Plan will be redrafted by December 10 and distributed to Task Force member for their review. The Plan will be submitted again to the GC at the December 17 meeting. There was discussion over buffer habitat.

Governance Committee Meeting Update

Paul Tebbel gave an update regarding his report at the November 18 GC meeting. Paul reported on the Cottonwood Ranch Demonstration Project pre-proposal, Baseline Document comments, IMRC comments, and the Technical Committee's minority opinion regarding the use of "quality" or "suitability". Direction from the GC was to use "Change in area, distribution, and suitability of whooping crane migrational habitat." Dale Strickland provided a brief update on progress of the Water Action Plan. There are several significant discussion points centered around the Action Plan and one of the most significant is the idea of proportionality. Dale discussed where the process appears to he headed at this point. Dale mentioned that Nebraska and Wyoming are going to provide an update on the progress they have made on their future depletion plans. Nebraska will also propose a test of their law to protect Program water delivered to the state's borders by Wyoming and/or Colorado. Dale also noted that Colorado had officially appointed Don Ament voting GC member and Greg Walcher and Howard Propst as alternates.

Baseline Document

Sharon Whitmore provided a brief update on work pertaining to the Baseline Document. The FWS and BOR are working on incorporating the 1998 GIS information, completing the remaining three sections, and incorporating comments on the first draft.

Demonstration Project

Paul Tebbel distributed a proposal that was submitted by Larry Wells to the Water Management Committee several months before. Larry discussed the history and physical characteristics of the proposed study site using a series of overheads. Larry noted that piping plovers have nested at the sandpit located on the property and that he has observed two whooping cranes in a wet meadow on the property. Larry suggested several possible uses of the site for a demonstration project. Possibilities included pumping of groundwater to lower river temperature, sediment transport, revegetation studies, and others. Members of the TC had several questions for Larry. Paul noted that the TC would consider the property during discussion of demonstration projects in the future and that members should contact Larry if they had further questions.

GIS Protocol Manual

After his demonstration project presentation, Larry Wells noted that the Mapping Subcommittee would be starting work on developing a GIS Protocol Manual for the Program. These activities maybe coordinated with the TC.

Integrated Monitoring and Research Component

Dale reported that four written comments had been received from the GC: South Platte Water Users, the State of Colorado, DOI, and Down Stream Water Users. Dale briefly discussed some of the major concerns raised in the comments and then gave a brief presentation on how he sees compliance and biological response monitoring fitting together. Some time was spent discussing Dale's presentation and the different views held by groups and individuals involved in the Cooperative Agreement. Most felt that the presentation material would be beneficial if added to the Integrated Monitoring and Research Component (IMRC) and would help address several of the comments received.

The majority of the December 7 and 8 meeting centered on discussing comments received on the draft IMRC. The first comments reviewed and addressed were those from the Down Stream Water Users. One of the main concerns in these comments was the lack of project level monitoring and research. Concerns were raised for both habitat management (e.g., river clearing) and flow management (e.g., EA management) monitoring and research. The group agreed that further explanation of this point is needed in the document. Significant time was spent discussing this point and several areas in the document were identified where additional information could be added.

Martha Tacha noted that it may be necessary to add some of the project level monitoring and research along with more system level monitoring of abiotic factors (e.g., sediment transport) into a section of their own. There was discussion regarding the inclusion of the budget in the IMRC. Dale noted that the GC has given direction that a budget for the proposed Program is needed. The TC will provide a budget for Finance Committee consideration.

The next major point of the Down Stream Water Users comment pertained to pallid sturgeon. Gene Zuerlein noted that it is important to consider pallid sturgeon since they are the only "target species" that spends its entire life in the river. Dale described a plan previously proposed by Mike Drain in which the first step is to determine if the effect of flow management for the three bird species in the central Platte can be measured in the lower Platte River. If the answer is "no", the hypothesis is not accepted. If the answer is "yes", there will be a series of steps in which pallid sturgeon habitat is considered further. There was discussion over whether or not the Program is to serve as the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) for pallid sturgeon. Dale suggested that Paul bring this topic before the GC during his report on December 17. Sharon Whitmore noted the FWS is drafting a letter describing their position on the pallid sturgeon issue and the RPA. The TC agreed that the process should be outlined that first looks at determining if effects of flow management in the central Platte can be measured in the lower Platte. Further steps would be similar to the existing "Pallid sturgeon document".

Adjourn for December 7 at approximately 6:30 p.m.

Call to Order for December 8 at approximately 8:25 a.m.

Paul opened the meeting for general discussion on progress and direction of the TC. Topics discussed included timeline for the TC, compliance monitoring vs. biological monitoring, and budgetary concerns.

Integrated Monitoring and Research Component - continued

The group started by discussing points raised in the Department of Interior's (DOI) comment letter. During discussions of the DOI's concerns related to adaptive management, Martha Tacha explained that she and Jan McKee were working on a document that they refer to as the "R3-1 Document". The R3-1 Document involves a series of tables that outline such things as parameters needed, potential sources of data, time frame, and whether the topics are covered in the current IMRC. The document will be helpful in focusing the TC on exactly what monitoring and research is needed for FWS to evaluate the biological response to the Program. Rick Brown asked that the FWS consider the milestones in P3-1 when developing the R3-1 Document. Several members asked if the document could be ready for TC review by the January meeting. Martha and Sharon Whitmore responded that it might be possible.

DOI comments pertaining to causal relationships and implementations vs. compliance monitoring were addressed during discussion of the Down Stream Water User's comments. The group moved to discussing DOI's concerns regarding quantifiable objectives. Sharon noted that they do not want the species quantifiable objectives that were in the old least tern document but rather habitat objectives. These "measurable" objectives are necessary for adaptive management and will likely change during the adaptive management process. The R3-1 Document being developed will likely help identify many of the measurable objectives needed for the DOI and adaptive management. During this discussion, it was noted that the IMRC needs to do a better job of defining what the objective is for monitoring and research.

Significant time was spent discussing concerns raised by the DOI regarding the geographic scope of the monitoring and research. The comment received from the DOI asked that the geographic scope for monitoring and research be the "entire geologic and hydrologic basin" for such things as sediment transport, nutrient flow, and water temperature. Sharon noted that this was not for species monitoring. There were several TC members that agreed that information on the entire basin would be interesting and useful, but concern was raised whether this was a Program responsibility or not. At some point there may need to be a majority and minority opinion brought before the GC, but for the time being the TC agreed that geographic scope would be defined on a project by project basis before protocol development. The TC agreed by consensus that the width of the study area for the central Platte would be the "valley floor".

Discussions pertaining to comments regarding reporting and communication included the need for more elaboration on process and time scale (annual, monthly). The TC agreed that a budget will be provided to the Finance Committee for their review and tracking of Program budget but will likely not be included as a portion of the IMRC at this time.

Mark Czaplewski asked what the "minor substantive" comments were in the last paragraph of the DOI letter. Sharon felt that all comments were addressed but would check to see if there were other comments that needed to be discussed.

The group moved to addressing comments from Phil Ogle. There was discussion regarding what will be done for "other species of concern". The sub-group headed by Mike Fritz will come up with an initial list of "other species" by January 18, 2000. Phil's other comments will be addressed through more descriptive wording of processes and definitions.

Comments received from Rick Brown could not be fully addressed in the time remaining. During revisions of the IMRC based on other comments received, the Executive Director's office will incorporate as many of Rick's comments as possible. The Executive Director's office will not attempt to incorporate comments that require substantial changes, comments in direct conflict with previous TC agreement, or conflicting comments before TC discussion.

The final comments discussed were from Eric Wilkinson, GC Alternate for the South Platte Water Users. The first three comments were covered during previous discussions. The comment regarding prioritizing monitoring and research was discussed at some length. All agreed that this is necessary and that the R3-1 Document being developed by the FWS will hopefully help focus the monitoring and research efforts. The comment was made that the TC needs to consider collaborative efforts with entities such as the Districts, Trust, NGPC, etc. If this is done, the overall cost of monitoring and research will be lower. The TC agreed that individuals would estimate what projects they are conducting and planning to conduct during the Program. The Executive Director's office will attempt to locate a list of these projects developed in 1998.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Development and Monitoring

Minimal time was spent discussing the draft proposal developed by Jim Jenniges. Jim noted that the only comments that he had received were from Dave Carlson. Several members voiced comments on the proposal during the meeting. These comments included the need for a statement that no part of the demonstration project budget will be used to satisfy NPPD's FERC license commitment, explanation of how the current $100,000 is being spent, and inclusion of the "Peterson track" as part of the proposal. Additional comments need to be submitted to Jim before January 14. Jim said that if significant changes are indicated in the comments that he could not continue to head the proposal effort because of other time commitments.

Future Meetings

1-6 p.m. Jan. 25th and 8 a.m.-3 p.m. Jan. 26th, CNPPID's Eagle Viewing Center, Ogallala, Nebraska

Adjourn for December 8, 2:30 p.m.