Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
Herschler Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming
September 11, 2001
Agenda and Minutes
Dale Strickland, Executive Director, called the meeting to order 2:20 p.m. and announced that Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, would be late for the meeting. No changes to the agenda were suggested. Changes to the minutes were suggested and the minutes were accepted by consensus as modified.
Status Reports
Governance Committee and Finance Committee
Dale reported that the Finance Committee (FC) approved the pre-proposal for conducting a fall whooping crane survey and would be considering the final proposal this week. Dale also noted that the Governance Committee (GC) would be meeting on September 14 and would be considering the fall whooping crane proposal.
Aerial Photos
Clayton Derby reported that cost estimates for fire resistant storage for aerial photos was $1,500-$2,500. It was noted that the storage would be for one set of prints. The other set of prints would be stored elsewhere and Horizons would continue to store the original film. The TC agreed that fire resistant storage was not needed for the prints housed in central Nebraska.
Tern and Plover Monitoring
The Tern and Plover Subgroup met on August 30 to discuss protocol implementation in 2001 and to develop recommendations for protocol modification. Subgroup recommendations may be incorporated into future protocols for TC consideration. Some of the subgroup's suggested modification were changing the minimum channel width from 25m to 50m and changing the effort based sampling from 1 pass for channels less than 200m and 2 passes for channels greater than 200m to just one zigzag pass that covers the channel regardless of width. Lyman McDonald indicted there are different ways to get indices and that the survey will not result in a total population count. One of the objectives is to locate nests and determine whether or not populations are increasing. If the counts are not standardized the Program will have only the total number of birds and nests observed. If the counts are standardized the Program will be able to report numbers of birds or nest per river mile, hour search, area of sand, etc. The difficulty will be in determining what the index should be. Lyman noted that the TC has a choice of several indices and that it is likely that no index that will satisfy all parties.
The TC spent some time discussing why the current protocol cannot be implemented as written (e.g., cannot operate the boat as specified in protocol when at very low or high flows, different interpretation of channel related terms). The group agreed that any terms that can be interpreted in different ways need to be defined so all parties have a common understanding. Lyman advised that agreement on a method is necessary so that all can agree on results. Lyman again noted that the most difficult part would likely be agreeing on what the index for standardization should be. It was agreed that the Executive Director's office should revise the protocol and develop definitions with input received from the subgroup and TC. Once the subgroup reviews the revised protocol and makes any further recommendations, the TC will review and concur with the modifications before implementation in 2002.
Database
Rick Brown explained that the Finance Committee has discussed the need for a Program database. Rick suggested that the TC needs to make a recommendation on how/where data collected during the Cooperative Agreement will be stored or it could be lost or damaged.
Draft Pallid Sturgeon Plan
Mark Butler reported that the FWS had reviewed comments on the draft Pallid Sturgeon Plan for "testing the assumption" and will be able to accommodate most of them. Mark noted that the main comments received were from NPPD and Nebraska and asked that the plan build more on Nebraska's procedure for analyzing gains and loses to determine how much water released for the central Platte can be tracked down to the lower Platte. Ann Bleed explained that the plan should look at how much water gets to the lower Platte and also how much do flows from the central Platte impact the variability in flows in the lower Platte. Ann also noted that careful consideration should to be taken when selecting the variables to be used in any regression. Mark noted he agrees with suggestions from NPPD and Nebraska and believes their suggestions will help achieve a better analysis of gains and losses.
Ann suggested that the plan clearly document why each step is being done. For example, it should clearly identify what portions are for completion of the milestone and what portions are for other reasons, such as historic flows. Rick Brown suggested that once the flows are calculated the plan should look at actual field gage data to check the modeled information and also consider gage error. Once the tracking is understood the TC and others can begin to look at if the Program can impact flows in the lower Platte and what is needed for the species. The FWS will revise the plan based on comments received and will include more description of what types of regression will be used. The revised plan will be distributed to the committees for review and then ultimately to the GC. The TC asked the Executive Director's office to review the revised plan for statistical soundness.
Protocols
Whooping Crane
It was explained that Gary Lingle provided a revised report on the spring survey for TC consideration and that the report was distributed prior to the meeting. Concern was raised that the report does not clearly indicate how many birds were observed, how many sites, etc. Ann Bleed moved that the report should be accepted as a contract completion report. TC accepted the report by consensus.
The TC reviewed the Executive Director's office draft whooping crane report. The TC suggested that the report be made broader to include information from Whooper Watch as well as the spring aerial survey. To reduce confusion in the future, the TC also suggested that the report include reference to the FWS observation number for confirmed whooping cranes and utilize consistent language for confirmed sightings, probable sightings, etc. Comments on the report are due to Clayton by October 1, 2001.
The TC discussed the possibility of implementing the systematic ground survey effort this fall. It was noted that the subgroup discussed the issue and recommended not requesting CA funding this fall but to use a more proactive outreach effort and include an 800 number for quick reply from the field crew. Dale Strickland noted that if the Program wants a consistent ground survey effort in the future it would likely need to fund it.
Clayton reviewed the Whooping Crane subgroup's recommended changes in the draft protocol. The TC was asked to consider the suggestions for discussion on September 12.
September 12, 2001
Whooping Crane Protocol
Concern was raised that the protocol does not identify a means for keeping track of independent observations (i.e., protocol does not track number of cranes like the FWS). The TC noted that this is largely an analysis issue. The protocol should direct crewmembers to take notes to help the FWS determine the number of "sightings". Concern was also raised regarding using multiple habitat measurements from one crane group as independent observations (pseudo-replication). Crewmembers should record a unique crane group number unless they are positive it is the same group previously recorded. Crewmembers should record their professional judgment in the notes on whether or not they believe differently numbered groups are in fact the same cranes (e.g., same number of birds, same location as yesterday, etc). The TC agreed that the Executive Director's office should make recommendations on the analysis for this, and other protocols, based on the stated objectives.
The TC discussed the purpose of the protocol and agreed that the protocol's purpose is not to determine the number of cranes using the central Platte valley. The protocol should provide an index of use if the same sample survey is conducted with the same level of effort annually. This index should allow the Program to detect a trend of increased or decreased use. With the use of field personnel notes and information from the FWS the Program may also be able to determine the minimum number of cranes using the area.
The TC spent considerable time discussing the time period during which the fall survey should be conducted. Clayton provided information from Jane Austin on the median and percentiles of observation dates between 1975-1999. Jane provided the information based on initial sighting as well as cumulative time spent in Nebraska (e.g., time group first observed vs. all of the days it spent in the area). For the fall period the TC agreed to use the 10% and 95% percentile dates for initial sighting (October 17-November 10). The TC will review the survey dates in the future to determine if the survey period should be shifted. Spring survey dates were not discussed. The TC agreed that the protocol should contain language for stopping early in the fall, similar to the spring, based on weather and known crane locations. Paul Tebbel suggested allowing surveyors to come to FC/TC for additional funding if whooping cranes are known to be north of the area. The TC asked that contractors improve safety by coordinating with the FWS, NGPC, Trust and others to keep all parties aware for possible conflicting flights.
The TC spent considerable time discussing various means to record use site information and crane group numbers. One option discussed was to record on a continuous basis (e.g., record all habitat types and map locations from the time the crane is located until it departs). Another option discussed was to conduct instantaneous observations at predetermined time intervals (e.g., where is the crane and what is it doing every X minutes). The TC agreed that both types of observations should be conducted: continuous and instantaneous at 15-minute intervals. Data to be collected during instantaneous counts will be habitat, location, activity, estimated distance to disturbance, type of disturbance, and estimated distance to visual obstruction.
The TC discussed the different variables to measure at use sites and agreed on definitions for water width and unobstructed width. Both rely on distance between vegetation less than 1.5m or until the transit rod can not be seen. The TC agreed that a transit and rod should be used to measure both elevations and distances. The TC discussed the possible need to measure transects similar to how the geomorphic cross sections are being measured for a "used and available" dataset. It was decided that this fall technicians would be used to measure decoy locations (random points) as an available dataset. The TC also discussed what else could be measured at a use site that could help determine why a crane group selected that site over another. One possible measurement suggested, but not included at this time, was a "total channel width" that would include cross sections across all channels even if they were separated by vegetation greater than 1.5m. The TC agreed that aerial surveys should be flown at 500 feet, that a sequential rotation of upland transects should be followed, that an extra technician was needed, and that personnel should search for two hours if a crane group is lost.
Subgroups
A Fish Monitoring Subgroup of Sharon Whitmore, Jim Jenniges, John Shadle, Paul Currier or Beth Goldwitz, and Mark Peyton was established. The TC was reminded that the In-Channel Vegetation Subgroup is comprised of Paul Currier, Sharon Whitmore, Jim Jenniges, Dave Carlson, and Mike Fritz. Tentative subgroup meetings were scheduled for November 8-9.
Baseline
The TC agreed to carry over Section 2 and to add Section 8.2 for discussion at the next meeting. Comments should be submitted to Clayton for circulation by October 10.
Future Meetings
1-5 p.m. October 16 and 8 a.m. -12 p.m. October 17, 2001, Kearney, NE
November: no full TC meeting scheduled, subgroup will meet
For further information, contact the Technical Committee chair
For further information about the Partnership,
contact any Governance Committee member.For comments and questions about this website, please email Buck Feist or call 406-247-7607