1 / 17

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Waterfowl Working Group Technical Subcommittee

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Waterfowl Working Group Technical Subcommittee. 12 January 2010. Acknowledgement. Thanks again to Tim Kreher and KDFWR staff Willingness to host Any inconvenience Willingness to host again Meeting cancellation

yardley-johnston
Télécharger la présentation

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Waterfowl Working Group Technical Subcommittee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint VentureWaterfowl Working GroupTechnical Subcommittee 12 January 2010

  2. Acknowledgement • Thanks again to Tim Kreher and KDFWR staff • Willingness to host • Any inconvenience • Willingness to host again • Meeting cancellation • Blame is a pointless exercise, so I’ll take full responsibility • We all probably could have done more • Bad timing with holidays and surveys • We are where we currently are, let’s move forward

  3. Objectives for Today • Status assessment for each subgroup with regard to action items • Identify remaining tasks and a timeline for the next steps required of each subgroup • Select a potential date for a follow-up meeting

  4. Structure for Today • Informal • List action items and look to subgroup members to provide assessment and timeline • Most groups have made contact and initial progress • Is there a bottleneck and what can I/we do to remove it?

  5. Action Item #1 • “A subgroup consisting of [Tim] Kreher, Frank Nelson, and Gary Pogue was formed to investigate and report to the Technical Subcommittee on the efficacy of alternative options…for estimating and incorporating duration and frequency into our DED calculations.”

  6. Action Item #1 • Next Steps • LMVJV Office is providing period of record data for select stream gauges and help with geodatabases • Suggestions for stream gauges that would capture duration of flood events in your state should be sent to Frank, Gary, and Tim • Heitmeyer table gauges included • Red River in Louisiana • Contacted Ed about Mississippi • Timeframe?

  7. Action Item #2 • “A subgroup comprised of [Luke] Naylor, Ed Penny, and Dale James was formed to compare the state-specific MOP acreages and DED values from the 30 December 2003 scene with those values reported by Uihlein (2000) in his surveys of private managed lands in the MAV.” • “This subgroup will also document the “square water” algorithm used by DU to classify MOP so the assumptions of that algorithm can be assessed and the algorithm can be applied to additional classified winter water scenes if they become available.”

  8. Action Item #2 • Status? • Next steps? • Help needed? • Timeframe for completion?

  9. Action Item #3 • “A subgroup comprised of Reinecke and Paul Link was formed to investigate this simplification as well as other potential methods of incorporating disturbance into estimation of DED values on both private and public lands.” • Status? • Next steps? • Help needed? • Timeframe for completion?

  10. Action Item #4 It was agreed by all that: • [Blaine] Elliott would develop a draft geospatial sanctuary database from available hunt maps and area brochures for all public lands • The state waterfowl biologists present (Link, Naylor, Nelson, and Penny) would review the portions of the draft sanctuary database relevant to their state lands • Tirpak and Naylor would coordinate with [Dan] Fuqua and Kreher for review of their respective states, and • Tom Edwards and Steve Reagan would coordinate review of the National Wildlife Refuge portions of the sanctuary database.

  11. Action Item #4 • Status?

  12. Action Item #4 • Status? • Next steps? • Help needed? • Timeframe for completion?

  13. Action Item #5 • “The group agreed to perform ad hoc sensitivity analyses and provide feedback to Tirpak and the rest of the Subcommittee at the next meeting, provided Tirpak produce appropriate tools…where alternative parameter values could be input and model predictions output.” • Status? • Next steps? • Help needed? • Timeframe for completion?

  14. Next Meeting Timeframe • We should meet again when sufficient action has occurred within subgroups to allow decisions among clear alternatives to occur

More Related