Laserfiche WebLink
The TC discussed how things such as the whooping crane model might be used by FWS. One <br />possible method is to use models as a standard against what is produced by the Program. <br />Another possible method is to use new empirical data to validated the model and /or build a new <br />model. Mark Butler explained that the WMC uses an OPSTUDY model to compare actual data <br />against. He pointed out that these comparisons are not for compliance. In the case of the WMC <br />use of models the model is useful for predicting conditions without a Program. Other models <br />may be used similarly. The TC asked that better clarification be given to how models would be <br />used. <br />Concern was raised regarding the whooping crane model and what data are collected because the <br />existing model assumes it is known what the needs of whooping cranes are and some parameters <br />are not included (e.g., potential importance of off - channel roosting). FWS representatives noted <br />that under Section 7 they need to use the best scientific evidence to determine project impacts <br />and if the Program collects data contrary to current thinking the FWS will need to use it in their <br />determination. It was pointed out that the R3 -1 Document does not determine the intensity of <br />data collections and this will be done during protocol development. It will ultimately be up to <br />the Program to determine exactly what data are collected and to what extent. Phil Ogle noted <br />that the IMRC currently covers some of the same topics as the R3 -1, but there are differences. <br />Jim Jermiges asked what #4 (Long -range species recovery objectives) under "the evaluation <br />process" relates to. Martha explained that the FWS is anticipating conducting workshops to <br />develop this objective. Sharon explained that this looks at stepping down the Recovery Plans to <br />include soft goals for the central Platte and relates back to the "X's" included in the initial Tern <br />Document. <br />The group spent some time discussing what direction is given in the R3 -1 Document for <br />developing protocols related to flow and sediment studies for use in the Cottonwood Ranch <br />monitoring and research project and the different interpretations. The FWS needs to know if the <br />channel is agrading, degrading, or fluctuating too greatly to tell. Dale said his office would work <br />with a small group to prepare draft protocol for TC review by the next meeting. <br />Concept Sampling Plan <br />Dale briefly explained the Concept Sampling Plan and the background used in its development <br />and that the Plan as presented was for discussion purposes. Lyman discusses how the Plan <br />would result in a probability based sample of the entire river and that it could be easily used to <br />tie research and monitoring together. The Plan would allow inference to the river giving equal <br />weight per mile of river. There was some discussion regarding the use of existing transects that <br />do not fall on Program established lines. Lyman recommended drawing a valid probability <br />based sample of points along the entire river. The concept plan envisioned sampling some points <br />each year and other points at some predetermined interval. The concept plan emphasized <br />flexibility in selecting actual sampling points through some sort of two staged sampling process. <br />If financially possible it might be beneficial to continue monitoring some or all of the existing <br />transects to look at local effects. The Program will want sampling to detect changes over time <br />and the statistically valid sampling plan will allow this. Logistical problems will need to be <br />worked out as much as possible during the iterative process of drafting and review of specific <br />protocols. <br />This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different if <br />corrections are made by the committee before approval. <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />