---

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

---

Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

January 23-24, 2001
CNPPID Eagle Viewing Center
Ogallala, Nebraska

 

Agenda and Minutes

Dale Strickland called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and welcomed the group. Dale noted that Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair would be late and that Paul had asked Dale to begin the meeting without him. No changes to the December minutes were suggested and the minutes were accepted by consensus.

Status Reports

Governance Committee and Finance Committee

Dale reported that one topic on the upcoming Governance Committee (GC) agenda is the Land Component Policy Statement. A draft was submitted by the states for GC consideration but was not discussed at the January meeting. The document will be reviewed and revised through the Drafting Subgroup before GC consideration. The policy is needed before the TC and Land Committee can complete the Habitat Protection Plan. Dale noted that since the GC is only meeting bi-monthly, more work would be done in small working groups.

Dale reported that the Finance Committee (FC) had agreed with the TC pre-proposal to implement the Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol in spring 2001. This agreement means that the TC should come to consensus on the protocol and submit a full proposal to the FC and GC for their consideration. Dale noted that the GC has tentatively scheduled a February 2 conference call to discuss the full proposal. There was general agreement within the FC that filling of baseline data gaps should be one of the highest priorities during the extension. The FC expressed the need to know what the TC's monitoring and research priorities are for the extension period to help them make future decisions regarding funding of protocols.

Mark Butler and Sharon Whitmore briefly reported to the TC the status of the process for completing the compendium of information and other baseline related topics for milestone R1-1. Mark and Sharon reported that because of work related to the extension and John Nickum leaving his position, work on baseline has not progressed lately. Dale stated that based on Nickum's preliminary findings there does not appear to be very much quantitative baseline information and that most protocols implemented during the extension will add quantitative information to the baseline.

Dale noted that the Whooping Crane subgroup had agreed that the Executive Director's office should do the work to test the protocol. Since that time it has been determined that this type of work would be outside the existing scope of work, and therefore, the work will need to be advertised and a contractor selected. The Executive Director's office will manage the contract for the TC, analyze the data, write the report, and work with the TC to modify the protocol as necessary. It was suggested that the RFP contain some minimum air service requirements for direction to contractors.

Black and White Aerial Photography

Clayton Derby reported that there is no change in the project status.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Project

Clayton read a report supplied by Paul Kinzel: "All three reaches within the ranch (input, managed, and output) have been surveyed, photos have been taken and sediment samples collected. All topographic survey data for these reaches have been reduced in a cross-section distance-elevation format. The lab work for the bed and bank samples from the input section has been completed and sediment parameters calculated. Landowners have been identified for the remaining 5 sections downstream from the Ranch needing to be surveyed. The 2 remaining cross-sections downstream from the Elm Creek bridge were visited but weather/flow considerations will most likely prevent further field work until March."

Review of TC Critical Path

Dale reviewed the TC critical path as discussed at the December 21 TC meeting. Dale noted that changes to the critical path are already known and include a possible delay in completion of the Habitat Protection Plan. Work will likely not begin on completing the Plan until the GC agrees with the Land Policy Statement currently being worked on by the Drafting Committee. The option of utilizing the Land Policy Statement as revised by the Drafting Committee, before complete GC agreement, was discussed as a possible method to start work on the Habitat Protection Plan prior to the March GC meeting. Dale recommended that it would be better to have a GC conference call and obtain consensus on the policy before proceeding on the Habitat Protection Plan if the TC wished to begin revising the Plan before the March GC meeting.

Protocols

Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol

The TC spent significant time discussing the Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol. Concern was raised that implementing the protocol this spring would automatically make the protocol the highest priority every year and that the priorities may actually change during the extension period and into the Program. Concern was also raised that the protocol does not consistently use the same terms throughout when describing crane group use sites (e.g., channel vs. riverine and out-of-channel vs. non-riverine). The TC agreed to refer to "use-sites" and not distinguish between in-channel and out-of-channel. This will result in all use-sites receiving the same attention and measurements taken (e.g., water depths).

The TC discussed the data to be collected at each use-site and methods for collection. The TC agreed that it would be best to have as much definition in the protocol as possible, but the TC also realized that time is a limiting factor in fully defining the data to be collected and methods for collection. The TC agreed that a form is needed similar to the FWS Whooping Crane Site Evaluation Coding Form that defines what will be collected at all sites. Not all TC members were familiar with this particular form and there was not agreement on using the FWS form, but on a form similar and developed for the Program. Clearly defining exactly what and how field measurements will be taken will be the first task of the field crew during and after training. The TC will develop a basic field form for the contractor to follow that will include as much definition as possible.

The TC agreed that another purpose should be added to the protocol (Purpose 5) addressing the use vs. availability issue. It was noted that the data to be collected through the protocol could be used in a landscape level, use vs. availability analysis. If more detail is needed on available resources, then a separate protocol will be required. It was noted that annual or semi-annual landscape data might need to be collected for the entire study area because the landscape can change (e.g., pasture to cropland). This will be incorporated in the eventual protocol describing aerial photography use during the Program.

The TC spent some time discussing the project design section of the protocol. Mark Butler relayed some concerns raised by John Sidle, USFS, regarding the effectiveness of aerial surveys. John stated that in his experience aerial surveys result in minimal numbers of "new" crane sightings. It was noted that the TC would be interested in determining if cranes are found from the air regardless if birders and other groups also report them. This will help test the effectiveness of aerial surveys. It would be most beneficial if the crews flying surveys do not know there have been cranes reported before they fly. The TC discussed how information obtained from the aircrew on their return flight to the airports (i.e., eastward leg of survey) would be treated. One option discussed is to mark wing-struts such that a specific width or band of the study area is searched. The other option is to just consider any sightings during the return trip as an opportunistic locate. The TC agreed that the air plane should travel approximately 1, 2, or 3 miles north or south of the channel on return flights to the airport and that the any birds found would be treated as an opportunistic locate. It was also decided that on the westward leg of each survey the observer looking in non-channel areas would not be restricted to a specific search band.

The TC agreed that the Ground Survey Component of the protocol to be conducted by the National Wildlife Federation should be removed from this protocol. The eventual TC protocol to be implemented by the Federation should be based on a coordinated driving survey or systematic survey.

The TC discussed how and if the ground crew will be sent out to check confirmed, probable, and unconfirmed opportunistic whooping crane sightings. It was decided that a prioritization would be established with the crew visiting all confirmed cases to conduct use-site measurements and activity monitoring. If no confirmed sightings are reported the crew will check probable and unconfirmed sightings in that order. Concern was raised that there is not a discussion in the protocol regarding the difference in effort for opportunistic locates and systematic locates through the aerial survey. Shay Howlin explained that the two different types of locates need to be analyzed separately. If no differences exist the information can likely be combined. If there are difference in the types of habitat used, between cranes located opportunistically vs. systematically through the aerial survey more "weight" should be given to those birds located from the air. If differences are great enough, then research should be implemented to determine why the cranes are using different habitats, or to determine if the aerial survey is not resulting in an adequate sample size.

The question was raised regarding whether or not Section IV.C., Information from Other States, is appropriate for this protocol and how the data would be used. It was noted that the GC directed the TC to collect other information from the proper agencies (e.g., FWS, states) regarding whooping cranes along the entire flyway. The TC agreed that currently there is not the same level of effort in other places along the flyway as there is in the central Platte and that the data would not be directly comparable. Some believed that the FWS or other agencies should place more emphasis throughout the flyway so that data are more comparable. It was agreed that the section should be retained in the protocol.

Other topics discussed included the analysis section and the timing of fieldwork. Shay Howlin noted that the analysis section should separate the selection analysis into two sections, one related to such things as distances to houses and powerlines (landscape level) and the other section detailing the analysis of on the ground collected variables such as channel widths. The analysis section should also discuss how the aerial and opportunistic locates will be analyzed separately. Concern was raised that starting surveys earlier in the year as stated in the protocol (March 18 for aerial surveys) would bias the data. It was suggested that the actual 90th or 95th percentile of when historic whooping crane observations have occurred be used to begin and end the survey period. Dale Strickland noted that the subgroup identified the need to start earlier because this is when there will be the greatest likelihood of finding a crane based on the past three or four years of observations.

Many TC members explained that it would be difficult for them to agree with the protocol because they have not seen the final wording. Dale explained that a consensus on the protocol would mean that the protocol could be implemented for the purposes of verification, modification and testing. A call for consensus was delayed until January 24.

Adjourn for January 23 at approximately 6:15 p.m.

Call to Order for January 24 at approximately 8:20 a.m.

Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol - continued

Paul reminded the group that the whooping crane protocol and all protocols will be independently peer reviewed before final agreement and implementation during the Program. Therefore, there will be the opportunity for all protocols to change as data are gathered during testing. Dale explained what the pre-proposal and proposal entail and what the process will be from this point: 1) revise protocol and budget based on TC discussion, 2) distribute to the FC and GC for consideration, 3) GC conference call if no negative responses from FC on February 2, 4) solicit and select a contractor, 5) implement protocol. Rick Brown noted that it might be worth revisiting the possibility of having the Executive Director's office conduct the work. Dale explained the likely role of the Executive Director's office under the current plan. Dale's office will coordinate a contractor as a TC representative, Shay and Clayton will train the contractor in the use of the protocol, go into the field for one or two days to see how the protocol is implemented, analyze the data, write a report with recommendations, and help the TC modify the protocol. There was general agreement with this approach. The question was raised whether or not another firm is available to conduct the work. The general feeling was that another firm could be found.

Mark Butler asked for clarification on how and when individual protocols and the IMRP will be peer reviewed. Concern was raised that the analysis proposed in the individual protocols will be exactly how the analysis will be done throughout the Program and that not enough flexibility is built in. Dale explained that the TC is attempting to develop protocols that result in simple, straightforward data that lends itself to various statistical analyses. The IMRP should include a statement that new or various analysis methods will be used as appropriate to analyze data. Concern was raised that by eliminating the ground survey component and by changing data gathered during the eastward leg of aerial surveys to opportunistic locates, the overall objectives of the protocol might be compromised. The protocol needs to elaborate more on what the assumptions are to insure that the current efforts described in the protocol are correctly directed (e.g., maybe more effort in out-of-channel areas). It was noted that a substantial reason would be needed to change the protocol during the Program since it will be best to have consistent data and effort. Concern was raised regarding the use of a volunteer effort to implement the ground survey protocol, in that if the effort waivers in the future the Program may need to pick up a fairly sizeable task and budget.

There was consensus to go forward with the protocol as modified for testing, verification, and modification. The protocol will be redistributed to the TC for a one day review and then to the FC and GC for consideration. Comments from the TC will be incorporated and outstanding issues with the protocol will be addressed at the next TC meeting.

Priorities

Paul Tebbel stated the FC requested that all committees develop a list of priorities for projects and work they feel should be conducted during the extension. Dale reminded the group of the ranked budget/protocol list for all Program protocols that a TC subgroup developed last year. The TC reviewed the protocols contained on the ranked budget/protocol list as well as the current list of protocol being worked on by the TC and Executive Director's office. The TC agreed that the Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol, Tern and Plover Monitoring Protocol, and General Monitoring Protocol should be high on the list. Some believed that these protocols were high for "testing" but after the initial testing the TC may decide to implement or test other protocols during the extension. The TC also agreed that research related to the impact of flows on vegetation/channel maintenance and fish (including lower Platte flows) was needed. The other protocols that should be implemented during the extension were a Database protocol, continued implementation of the Cottonwood Ranch Protocol, and an aerial photography protocol. The TC discussed a budget for each protocol assuming full implementation. Estimates include: Whooping Crane, $175,000/year; Tern and Plover, $70,000/year; General, $250,000/year; Research related to flow, no cost estimate; Database, $100,000/year; Aerial Photography, $30,000/year; Cottonwood Ranch, cost already budgeted. The Executive Director's office will work on costing out the research protocols before the next TC meeting. Once the TC is in agreement the priority list with cost estimates will be sent to the FC.

Tern and Plover Monitoring

Clayton and Shay went through comments received from three informal reviewers: Gary Lingle, Eileen Kirsch, and John Dinan. The TC came to agreement on the comments that could impact the design or methods described in the protocol. There was significant discussion regarding the need for the intensive survey component of the protocol. Dale and Shay explained how the adjustments to nest numbers would be made using the different survey methods and the benefits of conducting both the intensive and extensive components. The TC agreed to leave the intensive component in the protocol.

The TC discussed what should/could be implemented in 2001. One possible option was to exclude the intensive component during the extension and just implement the extensive component and nest monitoring. Jim Jenniges and Sharon Whitmore indicated that NPPD and the FWS could do the airboat surveys (extensive components) three times each if the study area is split. Jim also agreed that he would monitor nests and sandpits from Elm Creek to Lexington. Several people felt that the FWS, NGPC, and Central Platte NRD could share duties on monitoring nests and sandpits from Chapman to Elm Creek. Paul Obert indicated that the NRCS might have a biology student available to implement protocols on a cost share basis this summer. A pre-proposal to have Shay and Clayton assist the FWS, NPPD, and others test the protocol in the Spring, and then analyze data, write a report, and modify the protocol will be taken to the FC for consideration.

Other Topics

A geomorphology subgroup of Randy Parker, Bob Henszey, and Dave Carlson volunteered to review the General Monitoring protocol and comment in two weeks.

The TC agreed that a Aerial Photography protocol needs to be developed as soon as possible to insure that color infrared photos are taken this summer. The FC asked that the protocol be fully developed before more funding is allocated to aerial photography after agreement to conduct the black and white photography last fall. A draft protocol will be developed in February.

Future Meetings

Technical Committee - 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., February 16, NGPC Visitor Center, Ogallala.

Technical Committee - 1 p.m. - 5 p.m., March 14 and 8 a.m. - 12 p.m., March 15, Kearney