---

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

---

Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

October 16-17, 2001
Ramada Inn
Kearney, Nebraska

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. It was requested that an update on the Tern and Plover Monitoring report be put on the next meeting agenda. The September TC minutes were accepted.

Status Reports

Governance Committee

Dale Strickland provided the report. The channel stability issue continues to dominate the Governance Committee (GC) discussions. There was a Parsons/EIS Technical Team workshop held September 13 and another is planned for October 18. Dale also noted that the GC approved the TC proposal for the Fall Whooping Crane Survey.

Aerial Photo Documentation Report

The TC agreed that the storage location of the 2001 aerial photos (FWS in Grand Island and EIS Office in Denver) should be updated in the report and the report finalized.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Project

The USGS will be remeasuring cross section and sediment transects as part of the monitoring and research effort in October. The TC noted that a detailed annual report was to be produced and asked the Executive Director's office to remind Paul Kinzel and Randy Parker of this. Jim Jenniges reported that NPPD is progressing with the plan to clear trees and build backwaters within the Phase I area. NPPD also needs to create tern/plover reproductive habitat as part of Phase I but the question is by what method (island leveling, clearing, etc.) If sand is directly incorporated into the river extended monitoring is needed and NPPD will not pay for this but they are open to conducting the activity under their permit if the CA pays for the monitoring. The USACE is requesting six valley transects be completed for their HEC analysis before and after sand addition (if done), after certain flow events, and then on a regular schedule yet to be decided. This will be detailed in the 404 permit that is expected soon.

General Monitoring

Mark Peyton noted that WEST, Inc. was hired by the Districts to implement the Program Lands portion of the General Monitoring Protocol on Jeffrey Island and Cottonwood Ranch. Both a draft and final report will be prepared as part of their contract. The final report will be available for distribution to the TC. Also, the Executive Director's office (WEST, Inc.) was contracted by the Cooperative Agreement to implement the Management Specific portion of the General Monitoring Protocol at the Phase I site on Cottonwood Ranch. The TC will be asked to review this document before finalization.

Pallid Sturgeon Plan

Sharon Whitmore explained that the FWS revised the draft plan based on comments from the TC and Water Management Committee (WMC). Most of the comments were incorporated. The primary change in the plan calls for more analyses based on tracking/accounting and not regression based to test the assumption that flows released for the target species in the central Platte impact flows in the lower Platte. Once the plan is agreed to then the FWS/others will implement the plan. The TC agreed to coordinate comments with the WMC review. The Executive Director's office was asked to work with John Lawson in determining the WMC schedule for review/comments.

CNPPID Application to the Nebraska Environmental Trust

Mark Peyton explained that an individual had submitted an application for funding to the Nebraska Environmental Trust for development and purchase of a portable range finder/GPS/computer combination. The technology and hardware would allow individuals to get detailed positions remotely from up to one-half mile away. Such a devise might be useful for determining the position of whooping crane use sites, tern/plover nests, etc., without the need to enter the actual property. If TC supports this idea Mark suggested that a follow-up support letter for the grant could be submitted. TC agreed that the technology could potentially be used in the Program. Mark Peyton will draft a support letter to the Nebraska Environmental Trust for signature by Paul Tebbel, TC Chair.

Protocols

Whooping Crane Monitoring

Duane Hovorka provided a summary of the spring 2001 Whooper Watch efforts conducted by the Nebraska and National Wildlife Federations. Part of the effort was to implement the TC ground survey protocol for whooping crane monitoring. Larry Rogers, Whooper Watch coordinator, contacted 25 volunteers, of which 7 agreed to help implement the TC's protocol. Duane noted that monitoring in both the spring and fall is planned for next year, along with utilizing volunteers to provide habitat management assistance on conservation lands as appropriate (e.g., seed collection, weed control, etc.) The Wildlife Federation has requested a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to provide matching funds for these activities over a two-year period. It is anticipated that the grant will be approximately $10-15,000 short of the two-year period. There was general consensus within the TC that the Whooper Watch was a worthwhile effort to continue and provides valuable information for the Cooperative Agreement/Program. Duane asked for input on the proper method to request the $10-$15,000 over two years that the program is likely to be short even after NFWF funding. Duane was directed to work with the Executive Director's once NFWF funding is secured, to put together a proposal for the TC/FC/GC outlining what was asked for from NFWF, what was funded and where funding is short. The proposal should also identify how CA money would fund one of their protocols or part of a protocol and what product the CA would receive. The possibility of combining the effort with the NGPC Tern and Plover Program was discussed as another option to "cost-share" and implement both programs.

It was noted that the protocol for the fall 2001 Whooping Crane monitoring directed aerial surveys to be flown at an altitude 500 feet. The contracted flight services have indicated that they cannot fly at this altitude because of safety consideration and towns/residences. The TC agreeed that flights should be made at 750 feet for the river transect and 1000 feet for other transects. The TC also agreed that demarcation of distance bands on the airplanes was not needed for aerial surveys but that observers should be instructed to focus their attention on the area near the plane.

Database Management

Dale explained that he distributed a questionnaire to the various committees regarding their needs for a database during the Program. Dale went over the questions included on the questionnaire and got TC feedback. Once all information is obtained from the committees, a draft plan for budget development can be put together. The TC also discussed the possible need for a database during the remainder of the CA. Concern was expressed regarding spending large amounts of money on the database prior to the Program. The TC should decide if a database should be developed, then the FC and GC can make decisions regarding funding. Dale suggested that if a CA database is developed that it start as a pilot /demo project to get a database set up with existing data and then expand and fully implement when Program is in place. TC agreed. The TC also agreed that the system should be web based and that everything in the system should be available in "read only" files. Principle investigators could only change original data. The committee also agreed that the data should be geo-referenced by relating the data to existing spatial layers within the DIO GIS system. The committee felt that system oversight should be provided by a subcommittee formed from the Program's Water, Land, and Technical Advisory Committees with staff support from the Executive Director's Office. The committee generally agreed that the development and operation of the system should be contracted out to an independent entity (government or private) with the contract and system supervised by Program staff.

Spring 2001 Whooping Crane Survey Summary Report

Clayton Derby reported that the most recent version of the report was distributed on October 1 and contained input/comments received at the September TC meeting as no other comments were submitted by the deadline. Jim Jenniges noted clarification in a couple of areas was still needed and would provide written comments. Another written comments were requested by October 30 to the Executive Director's office.

October 17, 2001

Baseline Document Review - Section 2

It was noted that most comments are on historic disagreements regarding biological interpretation. Sharon Whitmore commented that the TC needs to decide if analyses items such as the Whooping Crane Model, PHABSIM, etc. should be in the baseline or not. The FWS will need to use this information for analysis during and at the end of the Program unless new tools are developed. To date, the TC has agreed that only the data and methods should be included in the baseline. Sharon explained that historic methods of data analysis might not need to be included in the baseline but that it should be located in the IMRP. Dale stated that general observational data could be analyzed in a number of ways and that this is why protocols and the IMRP do not have a detailed description of analyses. It was suggested that the analysis section of the IMRP be expanded to include historic analysis methods. It was noted that this type of information (e.g., what analysis tools the FWS might use for reviewing the Program) would be in the Biological Opinion and that this might be the most appropriate location. Sharon will discuss the various options with the FWS and provide feedback to the TC.

Whooping Crane Model Update

Sharon explained that the USGS office in Ft. Collins (MESC) is in the process of making the model user friendly, and developing a manual to describe the history of the model and how to use it. The final product is expected at the end of 2002. One item they are adding to the model is "version control" so that everyone will be able to tell when updates are added and if they have the most recent version. Updates to the model will be made through whooping crane monitoring data and possibly other specific data collection for the model. It was noted that all parties should be careful not to collect similar data using slightly different methods or definitions. This could lead to conflicting data. The overriding philosophy of the Whooping Crane Monitoring protocol, as with all protocols, has been to collect design based information and not information specific for one model. This allows data to be used by many models and statistical analyses. Sharon was asked to determine if the FWS R3-1 Charts identify all data needs for the whooping crane model and that the correct information is being collected for model updates. An example of a potential conflict is how channel width was measured historically and how it is measured with the protocol. It was suggested that the FWS could use the CA peer reviewed process for review of the MESC report/model compilation. A Whooping Crane Model update will be included on future agendas.

Baseline Document, Whooping Crane Section Redraft

Clayton Derby reviewed the direction given by TC at their August meeting for what information should be included in the baseline and what the structure of the document should be. One item not included in the TC direction was whether or not the document should include a determination of suitability of existing data for Before/After analysis. The TC agreed this should be included. TC agreed that the Whooping Crane Section outline followed their direction and asked the Executive Director's office to proceed on developing this and other sections.

Sharon asked that an explanation of method and purpose be included in the introduction and that the introduction be distributed soon. Dale stated that a draft introduction would be distributed by October 31. The TC agreed that they do not need to have a Baseline discussion on future TC agendas unless the Executive Director's office identifies a need for clarification. The TC was asked to send comments on Section 5 and Section 1 to Clayton Derby by November 26.

Fall Whooping Crane survey update

October 17 was the start of the fall 2001 Whooping Crane Monitoring surveys. Karyn Sernka reported on the first flight and indicated that no whooping cranes were sighted but that some sandhill cranes and other birds were observed. The crews have some air to ground communication problems to work out with the radios. Karyn noted that the crew anticipates conducting use site measurements at decoy locations to help train new technicians and to begin to develop an "available" dataset.

Future Meetings

November 8-9: Whooping Crane and Fish Subgroup meetings, Trust Facility

1-5 p.m. December 3 and 8 a.m. -12 p.m. December 4, 2001; CNPPID Eagle Viewing Center, Ogallala, Nebraska