---

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

---

Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

February 16, 2001
NGPC Visitor Center
Ogallala, Nebraska

 

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and welcomed the group. A discussion of a sediment related research project was added to the agenda. Mark Butler noted that he had a map of a confirmed whooping crane sighting in the U.S. portion of the Central Flyway. Mark Butler suggested a change to the January minutes and the minutes were accepted by consensus.

Status Reports

Governance Committee and Finance Committee

Dale Strickland reported that the Governance Committee (GC) had approved implementation of the Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol. The GC understands changes may occur in the protocol but that the changes will not impact the budget. Another topic discussed by the GC was use of the Executive Director's office during the CA Extension. It is anticipated that the ED's Scope of Work will be clarified so all parties understand how the ED can be utilized. There was also discussion of the news release and op-ed. piece proposed by the DOI. The GC wants to better coordinate outreach efforts in the future.

Paul Tebbel noted that the GC expressed the desire to include landowners as much as possible in the whooping crane issue. Part of this will be accomplished through the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) ground survey effort. The GC expressed concern that TC may need to pick up ground survey efforts if NWF decides in the future to not implement the ground survey protocol. The TC will work with the NWF to work through design and protocol development.

Aerial Survey

Clayton Derby reported that there have not been any developments since the last TC meeting.

CWRP

Randy Parker and Paul Kinzel distributed a status sheet regarding progress on the Cottonwood Ranch Property (CWRP) monitoring and research project. It was noted that a web page would soon be active for access to data and graphs related to the project. Randy and Paul will be finishing the five remaining transects this spring after ice out. The handout included a description of sediment size across the channel. Randy noted that there was not enough difference between bed material and bank material to distinguish the source of sediments when islands are cleared/leveled. Overall, the bed sediments sizes were variable, with some samples contained a fairly high D50. The average sediment sizes were approximately 1.5 mm with the variability and medians are similar to past studies conducted by USGS.

Paul and Randy also presented a comparison of "re-survey" cross-sectional data from Audubon's Rowe Sanctuary. The data indicate that there can be up to a 0.5 m vertical change in bed elevation at any of the locations, which indicates that the sandbars are formed, eroded, and migrate. The data do not show overall degradation or agradation of the bed. To show overall degradation or agradation a larger number of cross-sections with confidence intervals are needed. The graphs show the naturally high variability that needs to be considered when developing protocols. The TC needs to consider how and where they want to detect changes in the geomorphology (sediment size, cross-sections). For example, does the TC want to detect these changes throughout the river or within specific bridge segments? These decisions will dramatically impact the cost of monitoring and research.

Protocols

Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol

Selection Committee

The TC decided that the current Whooping Crane subgroup along with Rick Brown, Phil Ogle, and Dan Lechefsky would comprise the contractor selection committee and that the final selection would not need to be approved by the full TC. Kevin Urie inquired about what the process is if no qualified bids are received. Dale stressed the need to select a qualified contract from the submitted proposal, but if no qualifying bids are submitted, then the project would probably be done by WEST. Also, Dale noted that bids need to be within 5 percent of the estimated budget, or further approval by the GC is needed.

Data Sheets

Dale noted that Jim Lewis at the Whooping Crane Recovery Plan meeting suggested that a description of what constitutes the 1.5m obstruction reference in the protocol (e.g., bank, vegetation) should be included on the data sheets as well as a description of water depth at roost locations. Jim Lewis also suggested that an effort be made to measure the submerged sandbar area available to cranes. The TC discussed how this could be done. One suggestion was to use the aerial photos that will be taken when the cranes are first observed from the airplane. Randy Parker thought that it would be possible to get some idea of the sandbar's outline. Paul Kinzel noted that it would be possible to "rubber sheet" a photo over the 1998 CIR photos if the photos are taken fairly vertical. Randy suggested that he could help estimate the area and conduct the rubber sheeting if only 3 or 4 locations are photographed. It was noted that light levels and turbidity would influence the photo quality and depth to which the sandbar can be observed.

Shay Howlin will distribute draft data sheets for TC review and comment. Items will not be removed, but items will be added. Comments on the data sheets will be needed by March 2.

General Comments

Dale reviewed potential changes in the Whooping Crane Protocol contained in comments received since the last TC meeting. One change is to demarcate wing struts into flight bands so that technicians will survey a 0.5 mile strip transect either side of aircraft on each leg of the survey. This will result in systematic locates and not opportunistic locates during the eastward portion of the survey. Another suggested change was to alternate where the plane flies during the westward leg of the survey to north and south of the channel. Currently the protocol directs the plane to only fly south of the channel. There was consensus to demarcate the wing struts and to alternate the flights to both north and south of the river. There was a discussion regarding the need to define "roost" in the protocol. As currently written westward flights along the river (outbound from the airport) will locate cranes at roost sites, and eastward flights in upland areas (return to airport) will locate cranes at other types of sites (feeding, loafing, etc). Time will be recorded when the bird is observed, allowing the ability to go back and categorize the data in various ways. Consensus was reached to remove the term "roost" from the protocol.

Lyman McDonald stated the group should be aware of the biases associated with always sampling the river at one time of day and the other areas at a different time. If there were more birds to locate, the project would be designed so a more balanced effort over different types of habitat would be used. This can be changed in the future if more birds are located. As currently written, it will not allow the TC to compare "value" of different types of habitats. Lyman indicated that if the objective of the survey was to compare use in different habitat types, then there would be biases that will be difficult to deal with. Dale noted that one of the primary focuses of the protocol is to locate as many birds as possible and to do this it might be better to fly the river first.

The TC discussed whether the contractor should follow birds if they leave the 3.5-mile area to feed (e.g., feeding at say 4 miles), but are not behaving as if they intend to leave the central Platte. The TC decided that the contractor should use behavior to decide if the crane group is migrating or looking for a new use site in the immediate area. In the latter case the contractor should follow the birds and continue collecting data.

Dale asked whether the protocol should be changed to place both observers in the back of the aircraft. Jim Jenniges indicated that if the purpose is to locate cranes, then one observer should be in the front of the aircraft. Consensus was to have one observer in the front seat.

Dale explained that at the Whooping Crane Recovery meeting, the idea of using sandhill cranes as a surrogate was discussed. Lyman noted that a measure of habitat used by sandhill cranes will show the importance of it to sandhill cranes and perhaps an argument can be made for protecting that habitat type for whooping cranes. Mark Peyton noted that the Trust is conducting sandhill crane monitoring once per week and that when whooping cranes come through the area most sandhill cranes have departed; therefore the technicians would be dealing with the remnant sandhill cranes later in the whooping crane survey. Randy Parker also noted that the USGS is monitoring sandhill cranes using infrared technology. Consensus is to retain the focus on whooping cranes, but the protocol will be changed to include recording sandhill crane use on Program lands.

Dale indicated that one comment received was to modify the protocol to include testing whooping crane detectability by using white decoys in different habitats to determine if observers see the birds. Shay indicated that whooping cranes observed by ground crew could be used for estimate detectability . Lyman explained that this would give some indication that the surveyors are seeing all, some, or missing most whooping cranes. If necessary, adjustments can be made to how surveys are conducted in the future. Cooperators and the NWF volunteer coordinator could be used to set white decoys in designated areas when surveyors could see them. There was consensus to include detectability testing in the protocol and include decoys.

The TC discussed directing the field crews to complete all data sheets at several locations during the field season if no whooping cranes are located. This would help test and verify the data sheets and process even if no whooping cranes use the area. It was decided that this should not be included in the protocol, but would be asked of the contractor in an ad hoc fashion if no cranes are observed by mid-April.

Whooping Crane Ground Survey Protocol

Paul Tebbel presented an overview of the Whooper Watch Program as currently envisioned by the NWF and Nebraska Wildlife Federation (NEWF). Larry Rogers has been hired as the volunteer coordinator and is on the ground working. The NWF and NEWF is expecting the TC to provide a protocol for them to follow. They would like the protocol soon in order to plan and set up volunteers. Dale asked if the TC wants the same protocol used by volunteers as would be used by the Program if the volunteer effort fails. The TC agreed that this should be how the protocol is drafted. The TC discussed some possible aspects to include in the protocol, including the need for an estimated budget assuming no volunteer effort. The TC discussed the need to spread out efforts in some systematic or random fashion, instead of conducting surveys just where volunteers want to go. Dale suggested that there are likely two levels of effort: 1) according to random/systematic sample of roads, and 2) where people want to go. Paul Tebbel noted that the type of car being used in each survey should be included on the data sheet. There was consensus that the ED should prepare a protocol using a sample of roads included in the 1998 GIS analysis. The protocol should meet the needs of the TC and the protocol should be incorporated as completely as possible by the volunteer effort.

Tern and Plover Protocol

Clayton Derby distributed a pre-proposal that was previously distributed to the Tern and Plover Subgroup. No comments from subgroup members were received. The TC spent some time reviewing the pre-proposal. Mark Czaplewski noted that proper ESA permits would need to be secured before implementation. Dale suggested having a conference with the FWS Permit Section to determine how to proceed. There may be an umbrella permit with contractors included. Other comments included the need to include more description related to level of effort and time frame in the pre-proposal. Dale asked that any other comments be submitted by noon, February 20. The pre-proposal will then be sent to the Finance Committee (FC).

Priority Activities

Dale explained that the FC has repeatedly requested that the TC identify their priorities for monitoring and research during the extension period. Clayton distributed a table outlining unranked tasks and a cost estimate for each activity, as identified at the last TC meeting. Dale requested that the TC modify or concur with the list, budget estimate, and rank. Dale noted that some signatories have said they will go back for more funds if needed, but currently there is approximately $1 million unallocated. DOI has also mentioned that up to $2.5 million more could potentially be secured.

The TC spent some time discussing the various activities identified on the list. Dale noted that he spoke with Mark Butler regarding analyzing gauge data as a means to see if flows in central Nebraska can be detected in the lower Platte River. Mark agreed this would be a valid measure to begin "testing the assumption". Sharon Whitmore noted that the FWS is anticipating coming up with the "Plan" referred to in milestone Rla-Ext. Mark Czaplewski noted that the TC needs to address the issues that constitute jeopardy and may result in no Program during the extension. Sharon stated the DOI's big concern is resolving the sediment issue. Other issues exist such as the Land Policy and what will be done for pallid sturgeon. The FWS will provide their ideas on jeopardy by March 1 to the RPA Sufficiency Subgroup. Dale explained that today's recommendation from the TC regarding priorities would be based on information to date. If the RPA Sufficiency Subgroup offers other ideas, then the TC priorities may change. Rick Brown expressed the need to also consider baseline issues and ensure that correct protocols are implemented to obtain this information.

Paul Tebbel described a possible research project related to sediment near Audubon's Rowe Sanctuary. Landowners have approached Audubon and NGPC with concerns that islands are causing redirection of flow into their property and resulting in erosion. The project as currently envisioned would level approximately 8 acres of islands. Randy Parker noted that additional cross sections in the "Managed Zone" would be needed, and that he would continue to measure the existing cross sections in the down stream reaches below the managed area. Randy estimated that about 2/3 of funding is in place through existing efforts or worked planned by the FWS and NGPC. Approximately $30-35,000 would be needed from the CA to complete the monitoring. Paul proposed adding the project to the list of priorities. The group discussed the pros and cons of the proposed project and decided that not enough information was available to agree or disagree with placing the project on a priority list.

Dale asked the TC to rank the identified activities. All TC members individually ranked the activities. Ranks were averaged among all TC members to come up with the final priority list as follows, from highest priority to lowest: General Protocol, Aerial Photo Protocol, Whooping Crane Protocol, Impact of Flows on Vegetation, Tern and Plover Protocol, Database Protocol, Impact of Flows on Fish Research Protocol, and Protocol to begin "testing the assumption" for pallid sturgeon. Many of these will result in quantitative baseline information if implemented during the CA Extension.

Concern was expressed that flow-related research should be more directed toward monitoring effects of EA releases on temperature, stage, wet meadows, to see if they had the desired effect. These activities will be changed to say impact of EA and other flows on fish, vegetation, etc.

Impact of EA and Other Flows on Fish Protocol

There was discussion regarding the purpose for monitoring or research on the effect of the EA and other flows on fish. Lyman gave some history on the Columbia Basin salmon problems related to flow and suggested building decisions rules into the milestones to prevent continuing arguments about whether or not flows are needed in the future. The TC needs to decide what criteria variable(s) should be studied. Dale reviewed the "fish needs" as identified in the R3-1 Table: community structure, species composition, and temperature. The TC also identified size distribution and species as possible concerns, especially in areas near existing tern colonies.

Future Meetings

1 - 5 p.m., March 14 and 8 a.m. - 12 p.m., March 15, Okinga Conference Center, Kearney

12 - 5 p.m. April 19 and 8 a.m. - 12 p.m. April 20, Cheyenne

Adjourn - 2:50 p.m.