Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
Technical Committee Meeting
April 9-10, 2003
Eagle View Center
Ogallala NE
April 9, 2003
Agenda and Minutes
The draft agenda was modified to include a discussion of a proposal from CNPPID to control Phragmites near North Platte, Nebraska. The February minutes were approved as written.
Status Reports
Finance Committee - Dale Strickland provided an update on recent Finance Committee (FC) and Governance Committee (GC) activities related to the TC. Dale reported that the Fish and Wildlife Service at a recent workshop advised the GC that the draft IMRP is sufficient for EIS and BO analysis, although the Service indicated that there were some sections of the IMRP that needed to be clarified, particularly regarding in-channel habitat investigations. The TC needs to continue to add details to the document for Program purposes. Other items being discussed by the GC and FC are how to address "regime of the river", Cooperative Agreement Extension and budget, and the National Academy of Sciences review.
Fall 2002 Whooping Crane Report - Clayton Derby reported that Greystone had completed revisions to the draft report and that the final document was available on Greystone's ftp site (ftp://ftp.greystone.us) or could be obtained from the Executive Director's office on a compact disk.
Spring 2003 Whooping Crane Migration - Clayton reminded the group that regular aerial surveys were not being conducted this migration season but that the National and Nebraska Wildlife Federations were implementing "Whooper Watch". It was also noted that Felipe Chavez-Ramirez had located a pair of whooping cranes 2.5 miles downstream of Lexington while conducting a sandhill crane survey. [Note: This location was later confirmed to be 2.6 miles downstream from the Elm Creek bridge.]
File Naming Protocol - Concern was expressed prior to the meeting that currently there is not a consistent method used for naming documents distributed electronically. Clayton noted that he will try to consistently name files as they are distributed form the Executive Director's office for the remaining Cooperative Agreement period and that consist file naming will be better handled when the Program's Database Management system is in place.
Aerial Photography
At a previous meeting the TC had requested that a presentation and discussion be held related to the pros and cons of digital and conventional aerial photography. Alan Bell, USBOR, provided a handout and materials from information that he had collected related to the topic. Alan handles numerous contracts related to aerial photography for the USBOR. Alan noted that both types of aerial photography had their pros and cons. Some of the pros for digital included faster turn around time, cost for an ortho-rectified product, and better accuracy without placement of ground control. Some of the pros for conventional photography included the ability to view photos in 3-D with a stereoscope and the fact that hard copy prints and film are made available easier. Some of the cons for digital included the need for significant computer software and hardware to view and process them and the fact that more frames are required for the same area photographed. The TC concluded that for Program needs, digital photography would likely be the better option now that costs have been reduced and accuracy had been increased. The TC requested that the Executive Director's office further investigate the use of digital photography, specifically costs and licensing issues.
Phragmites Control Proposal
Kent Aden, CNPPID, reported that twice during 2002, Environmental Account releases had to be curtailed due to flooding near the city of North Platte. Since that time, CNPPID has conducted a reconnaissance study investigating the causes and possible solutions to the flooding problem. One of the possible causes identified was the proliferation of phragmites in secondary channels along this section of river. The phragmites slows the flow of water and accumulates sediment. Other problems identified included the blockage of side channels by beaver dams, rock crossings, and other obstructions. The CNPPID proposal included burning the standing phragmites cover followed by chemical application. Burning the area would remove the thatch from old growth as well as allow a more detailed look at the side channels for any additional blockages. The proposal indicated that CNPPID would conduct the burn at their expense if the Cooperative Agreement covered the chemical costs and any monitoring. The TC discussed the overall merits of conducting the project but focused on the need for monitoring. The TC generally agreed that if the burn and chemical application went forward they would not propose conducting any detailed vegetative or biologic monitoring. The TC generally agreed that if the GC considered monitoring necessary it should be conducted by cooperators similar to the Tern and Plover Monitoring. The TC also recognized that the Water Management Committee might wish to implement hydrologic or geomorphic monitoring studies in the area.
Whooping Crane Protocol Peer Review Comments
Clayton reported that he had addressed the comments from the Peer Review contracted by the TC and had also documented how each comment was addressed in a separate document, as asked by the TC. Dale asked that the TC indicate if they were satisfied with how the comments were addressed so that a report back to the GC and the peer reviewers could be made. The TC generally felt that the comments were addressed adequately but requested that a final decision not be reach until the next day. Items identified for consideration before the final decision included making sure the protocol accurately reflects the TC's plan for activity monitoring and flight directions. It was also requested that a list of decisions made by the TC when developing the protocol be written (e.g., why fly east to west and west to east, why fly at 750 feet, etc.)
During discussion of the peer review comments, concerns identified by Felipe Chavez-Ramirez regarding the protocol were also discussed. Felipe's concerns included the general approach to using aerial surveys, flight altitude, flight direction, coordination, and others. The TC recognized many of Felipe's comments had been discussed in past TC meetings and the protocol as currently written was a consensus document based on those discussions. For example, the TC discussed the problem of reduced visibility when flying the aerial survey from west to east into the rising sun on some days, but the TC was willing to accept the reduced visibility to make sure that the west side of transects were covered first on some survey days. The TC asked the Executive Director's office to explain some of the decisions in a response to Felipe, to request that Felipe provide examples of how the protocol could be improved, and to request that Felipe attend future TC meetings.
Geomorphology Protocol
The TC requested at a meeting in late 2002 that the Executive Director's office work with those parties commenting on the draft Geomorphology Protocol before bringing forward another draft. The Executive Director's office met with these parties and revised the protocol. Major changes made included the measurement of a nest of 10 transects at anchor points selected for sampling and the installation of automatic water samplers for suspended sediment. The TC asked that the protocol be distributed back to those that assisted in developing the protocol to insure that the ideas were accurately incorporated. TC comments on the draft are due by May 16, 2003. The TC also identified the need to decide what level of detail is needed in this protocol prior to Program implementation.
Tern and Plover Monitoring
layton reported that the cooperators would be implementing the protocol in 2003 as they have done for the past two seasons. A brief pre-implementation meeting will be held in early May. Shay Howlin stated that all comments received to date on the 2002 Tern and Plover report will be incorporated and the report finalized. No other TC comments were voiced at the meeting.
April 10, 2003
Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan (IMRP)
The Executive Director's office reported that they have been working on incorporating comments received to date on the draft IMRP. The TC reviewed a sample page of the revised IMPR Table 1 identifying protocols and budgets, and an example page of identified questions and the corresponding protocols that will provide information to address the questions. The TC generally agreed with the direction being taken but asked to see a full list of questions and protocols soon. It was also noted that the Executive Director's office is working on revising the figures contained in the IMRP.
Whooping Crane RSF Analysis
The TC requested that the Executive Director's office conduct a pilot RSF analysis of whooping crane data collected using the draft protocol. Shay Howlin presented the methods and results of the analysis to date. It was noted that in several instances the Executive Director's office had to make educated guesses on what parameters to group or scales to use in the analysis. The TC requested that there be a workshop in which those members interested in the RSF analysis could assist in developing scales, parameters, and other ideas for inclusion in the analysis. This workshop was set for April 30 and May 1 in Cheyenne. The TC also asked that the analysis methods and results be presented to the GC when it is complete.
Baseline
Clayton reported that the Landscape Features and Other Species section of the draft Baseline Document would be distributed shortly. These sections are the remaining sections yet to be reviewed by the TC.
Schedule and Budget
The GC is discussing options for extending the Cooperative Agreement period. If this is done they will need input from the TC on their estimated budget needs and priorities. The TC identified topics for potential implementation during an extension, including continuing the Cottonwood Ranch Monitoring and Research project at a some effort in the future; continuing Whooping Crane Monitoring and investigating possible options if identified; continued aerial photography; continuing Tern and Plover Monitoring; and testing the Geomorphology Protocol at the system level.
Whooping Crane Protocol Peer Review Comments - Decision
The TC discussed how the Executive Director's office incorporated peer review comments on the Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol at the April 9 meeting but delayed any decision on excepted the modifications until today. The TC recommended a few modifications and accepted the protocol as adequately incorporating the peer review comments. It was noted that some of the input from the peer reviewers were similar to comments received from Felipe and suggested that alternative methods be investigated (i.e., they did not modify the current protocol but were suggested as alternatives to the protocol).
Future Meetings
April 30-May 1, 2003; RSF Workshop, Cheyenne, Wyoming
May 28, 2003: CNPPID Eagle Viewing Center, Ogallala, Nebraska
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