Final Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting

Agenda and Minutes

Paul Tebbel called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on May 31 and welcomed the group. Paul noted slight modifications to the agenda. The draft April minutes were amended to clarify that the R3-1 Document might be independently peer reviewed under milestone R4-1 after Technical Committee (TC) review. The minutes were accepted as revised by consensus.

Status Reports

Governance Committee

Dale Strickland updated the TC on discussions and decisions affecting the TC resulting from the Governance Committee (GC) meeting May 25. Dale noted that the GC had approved the Executive Director to contract with Lynx Spatial Technologies for GIS assistance. Dale explained that other topics discussed by the GC would be covered later during the TC meeting.

Habitat Protection Planning Task Force

Mark Czaplewski noted that the Task Force will meet June 12 to start fleshing out the detailed draft Habitat Protection Plan outline.

Sediment/Vegetation Model Presentation

Paul Tebbel introduced Tim Randle, Bureau of Reclamation, to present information related to the development of the Sediment/Vegetation Model (Sed/Veg Model). Tim explained that they are trying to link as many resources together as possible in a one-dimension model by looking at the hydrology, sediment, vegetation, habitat characteristics, and other aspects of the system. Much of the information used in the model is from data collected in 1989 and 1998 measurements of Bureau of Reclamation transects. Development of the model and preliminary analysis of flow management has led to concerns that with additional flows from the Program the channel might incise and allow further vegetation encroachment. The ultimate goal is to find a balance of increased flows and timing that will not lead to further vegetation encroachment and channel narrowing. Tim used a slide show to explain the various input and output variables of the model as well as an overview of how the model calculates various factors (e.g., sediment transport).

After Tim's presentation, the TC spent some time discussing the topic and asking Tim questions. One of the topics discussed included how the various vegetation types used in the model (i.e., prairie cordgrass, spikerush, willow, and cottonwood) were chosen and what affect other types of vegetation might have on the model. Tim and others noted that items such as germination time, growth rates, etc might impact the model. Tim welcomed new information and said that other plant types can easily be added if growth rates, germination period, desiccation criteria, and other biological attributes are provided to him. Tim also explained how the model calculates daily flows by using historic patterns along with the minimum, maximum, and mean flows. Tim noted that they have compared model output to historic flow data and will be doing the same for sediment. It was pointed out that a similar comparison could be done for vegetation by using Carter Johnson's work. Other topics discussed included impact from ice flows (to be included in model), sediment supply sources and sediment load.

Tim explained the process that they will be using to help calibrate and validate the model. Output and patterns from the model will be compared against three time periods to see if the model is tracking with the historic data. The time periods to be used include the 1850's (high volumes and peaks in flow, fine sediment), 1907-1970 (channel narrowing and vegetation encroachment), and 1970-present (equilibrium). If the model accurately represents all three time periods then Tim said that he would be fairly confident in using the model in analyzing the EIS alternatives.

Dale Strickland explained that some GC members expressed concern over comparing alternatives using a relatively new and untested model. Dale noted that Ralph Morgenweck had said that the model was only one tool to be used. Dale asked Tim what the other tools does the EIS Team plan to use for analyzing the alternatives. Tim explained that the HEC-6 model developed by the Corps of Engineers could be used to look at sediment but that it does not include vegetation. The EIS analysis could also use empirical relationships of things such as flows to sediment load. Tim noted that it is too early to say how much confidence there is in the model but that if the model is used to compare alternatives the biases that do exists will be applied equally to all alternatives. This is different than using the model to predict what may happen in the future.

Lyman McDonald asked several questions related to how the Bureau of Reclamation transects were placed and how the data were collected. This led to a discussion related to placement of transects for general Program monitoring. It was noted that there will be a strong push to use the Bureau of Reclamation transects. Lyman explained that just using these would not provided all of the desired information. He also explained the difficulty in interpreting data from transects when written protocols for transect location and data collection are lacking. Lyman indicated that it might be best to use both systematically placed transects as well as some of the Bureau transects for general Program monitoring. Tim agreed to give another presentation to the TC after the calibration and validation.

Cottonwood Ranch Property Protocol

Randy Parker described a meeting that he and several other people had at Cottonwood Ranch. It was decided at the meeting that an upstream/downstream design for the monitoring and research should be used as opposed to a paired channel design. This will require more transects but fewer flow gauges. Randy explained that the main channel through Cottonwood Ranch would be intensively sampled in three locations relating to "input section" at the upper end of the property, "managed section" in the immediate vicinity of management actions, and "output section" near the lower end of the property. The protocol also envisions using a small number of transects between Cottonwood Ranch and the Kearney Canal. Randy distributed a table outlining what information would be collected on the various transects. Randy explained that the biggest benefit in shifting from the paired channel design to an upstream/downstream design is the fact that no change in management will be required.

Jim Jenniges noted that COE 404 permit and NPPD's bid-letting process could delay the start of channel work. If work is done before the 404 Permit requirements are met it will need to be away from the river and then contractors would need to mobilize equipment a second time to conduct the work near the river. This will cause logistical complications as well as increasing the overall cost of management. Jim also noted that FWS would not allow work to be undertaking during mid-February to mid-July due to bird activity. The TC discussed if they should ask NPPD to wait one year before management activities so that more baseline data is collected. Dave Carlson stated that effects during any year could just as easily be misleading due to the vagaries (drought, high flows, channel ice, or lack thereof), and thus not really provide a scientifically justifiable baseline. Mike Fritz noted that NGPC is also an assigned consultant to the Cottonwood Ranch Development and Enhancement Plan and he did not favor a delay. Several within the TC thought that more discussion was needed regarding the pros and cons of waiting before a decision is made.

It was noted that the Corps of Engineers 404 Permit may require some sort of baseline for threshold measurements before any management is completed in or near the river. If work is done before the 404 Permit requirements are met it will need to be away from the river and then contractors would need to mobilize equipment a second time to conduct the work near the river. This will cause logistical complications as well as increasing the overall cost of management. The TC discussed if they should ask NPPD to wait one year before management activities so that more baseline data is collected. Several within the TC thought that more discussion was needed regarding the pros and cons of waiting before a decision is made.

Dale reminded the group of Finance Committee contingencies for funding the research and monitoring project (e.g., TC consensus on protocol). One of the concerns raised in the past was that the project has a contribution to the overall Program's monitoring. Therefore, it will be important to insure that this happens. The TC noted that the transects proposed for below Cottonwood Ranch could be used throughout the Program and that it might be necessary to place some additional monitoring transects through Cottonwood Ranch.

There was some discussion regarding what the goal or hypothesis of the research project would be. Randy explained that the project will be used to determine what happens to the bank and bed stability (morphology) and to determine what the migration of sediment material is downstream (sediment size and transport). Randy explained that the transects need to be close together so that they can look at bank and bar movement as a result of management as well as for use in a three-dimensional model. A three-dimensional model will allow interpellation of data between cross-section in flow fields. It will also help interpret sediment migration. The TC discussed the need to have statistically valid sampling methods and have all procedures documented in standard operating procedures (SOP) (e.g., how many elevation readings, how many sediment samples). This will be very important if the protocols and results are to be peer reviewed.

Randy noted that if the management activities begin in October, baseline data collection needs to begin no later than late July. The TC and Randy will need to decide who collects which data, if the USGS and NPPD do not collect all of the data the work will need to be put out for bid. Randy said that the USGS will collect the in channel data for the research. USGS will not be able to collect the out of channel data or data in channels other than at the research sites. The Finance Committee and others will likely want some data collected across all channels on some transects. An effort will be made to coordinate the collection of data across all channels to the research transects. The TC needs to decide what variables should be collected at monitoring as well as research transects. Dale asked if the TC was satisfied with the protocol development process so far. The TC indicated satisfaction with the process.

Adjourn for May 31 at 5:30 p.m.

Call to Order for June 1 at 8:15 a.m.

General Program Monitoring

Shay Howlin described a general plan for monitoring the geomorphology and sediment transport throughout the central Platte based on systematically placed transects. The general monitoring will need to be conducted quickly and cheaply for the monitoring to last through the Program and not be cut for budget reasons. If the transects are placed systematically the Program will be able to conduct broad level analysis of the entire river. Estimates can be made on a per mile basis and subdivisions of the river. Shay asked for input on existing data sources as well as direction on what variables should be collected from the ground as well as from aerial photographs. Dave Carlson pointed out that besides the Bureau of Reclamation transects, the TC should consider the IFIM transects put in between 1983-1984. These transects were placed in clusters from 3-9 transects at 16 sites deemed to be representative of the general areas. The TC agreed that the overall monitoring philosophy is to use general monitoring through the entire river and then more intensive research at some sites. The TC also needs to decide what variables will be collected and to rectify the IMRC with the R3-1 Document before better budgets are estimated.

The TC identified individuals within their agencies that have conducted work on the river in the past. Lyman noted that Shay would contact some of these people to write-up a proposed list of data needs and data collection methods for the protocol. The USFWS will also contact URS Griener Woodward Clyde to coordinate distribution of reports used in the draft Baseline Document to the Executive Director for use in protocol development. The TC will also decide if "old" transects will be revisited during the Program, if so which ones.

Dale Strickland noted that several protocols/questions currently look at evaluating the effects of Program water on particular variable. In past Water Management Committee meetings Mark Butler and others have said that it will not be possible to distinguish Program water from other water because no one can be sure what the flows would have been without a Program. Therefore, these protocols/questions need to be changed to measure flows and other variables, not the impacts of Program flows. Cause and effect analysis will be done through more direct research (e.g., what was the result of one major EA release on removing seedlings).

Another topic discussed included the possibility of stratifying transects on 'conservation' land and non-conservation land. This would effect the density of transects through the entire river but might give better information on Program land or other conservation land (e.g., Rowe Sanctuary). This might come as a result of budgetary considerations.

Aerial Photography Proposal

Paul Tebbel explained that the pre-proposal was discussed at the last Finance Committee conference call and that they had asked for more detail and justification. During the call it was noted that the USGS and Nebraska Resource Council would be taking 1:40,000 black and white photographs this fall. The Finance Committee asked the TC to investigate and decide if these photos would work for TC monitoring and research needs. In addition, the TC needs to decide why it needs aerial photos, how often, under what conditions, etc. for use during the Program. Sharon Whitmore and Jim Jenniges will continue to draft an aerial photography proposal that includes details, justification, costs, and other fully fleshed out information.

R3-1 Document

Paul Tebbel explained that the current draft comment letter has differences of opinion among non-FWS members and, if the comment letter and R3-1 Document are presented to the GC, the entire issue will probably be sent back to the TC for further review. Paul said that he wanted to avoid this and get to the point that the FWS and TC could move forward. Major points of disagreement will need to be clarified before the issue is brought to the GC. Paul noted that there might never be complete agreement.

Dale explained that a major reason for disagreements seems to come from differing interpretations of the wording in milestone R3-1, not only within the TC but also at the GC level. Dale suggested that the TC and FWS try to agree on a definition for milestone R3-1, and if they cannot agree, the issue should be elevated to the GC for resolution before submission of the R3-1 Document and comment. Dale explained that his interpretation of the milestone is that the FWS will identify data parameters needed and the time frame required to evaluate those parameters. There was consensus on this definition. Dale noted that the current R3-1 Document goes beyond this definition and opens issues that do not have agreement. The Cooperative Agreement participants entered the agreement knowing this but with the understanding that these issues would be studied through the Program. Sharon Whitmore explained that the document includes the introductory material to help explain the rationale for the identified parameters and time frames that were included in the tables. It was noted that if the R3-1 Document can avoid extensive discussion of disputed issues, then the TC and FWS can focus on issues such as what variables are need for the FWS in making their determinations and what variables Program participants are likely to want investigated. It was also noted that it is very difficult to compare the parameters identified in the R3-1 Document to those contained in the draft IMRC and that this comparison is needed for budget estimation.

Sharon Whitmore summarized what would be done regarding the R3-1 Document. It was agreed that the R3-1 Document for presentation to the GC and for inclusion in the IMRC would be composed primarily of the tables included in the current draft. The tables will outline the data needs as well as the time frame for monitoring. The FWS will also draft a document that compares the data needs in the R3-1 Document to the FWS's interpretation of the IMRC. This will allow others to see were discrepancies exist and where there are differences in interpretation. These documents will be provided to the TC for review at the next meeting. It was noted that there will likely still be points needing clarification but that they will be on technical issues that can likely be worked out in the TC. Dale said that his impression was that the GC would agree that this met the needs for milestone R3-1. As a means of archiving the FWS's rationale and TC responses, the Draft Final R3-1 Document dated April 17, 2000 and Draft Target Species Suitable Habitat dated April 21, 2000 will be attached to the minutes (see attachment) as well as the individual comments received from TC members (see attachments).

Program Products

Dale described the process that a GC Drafting Committee is following in working on documents to be included as attachments to the Program. The Drafting Committee has requested that all committees review their information and provide a report back on completed documents, unresolved issues, and dates for completion. The Drafting Committee has worked on a Program milestone related to pallid sturgeon. Dale and Paul suggested that the TC review this milestone. The committee has also asked for a TC charter for the Program as well as an adaptive management document. Paul agreed to draft a Program charter based on the current charter. Sharon Whitmore agreed to draft an expanded adaptive management document using the adaptive management section in the IMRC and flow chart. Adaptive management will affect committees other than the TC and coordination will be needed. Kevin Urie and Mark Czaplewski agreed to update the Peer Review Work Plan. These revised documents will be discussed at the next TC meeting. The TC will also decide when products will be completed and give advise to Paul on drafting a letter to the Drafting Committee outlining TC products and completion dates.

Budget

Dale explained that the TC needs to update the estimated budget based on the R3-1 Document information. The Finance Committee will likely want to see what the estimated budget is for the reconciled IMRC/R3-1 data needs, just for the R3-1 data needs, and then what can be accomplished for 75%, 50%, and 25% of the total estimated budget. The TC will also need estimate a budget for Year 4 of the Cooperative Agreement (7/1/2000 - 12/31/2000).

Future Meeting

1 p.m. - 6 p.m. MDT June 20 and 8 a.m. - 2 p.m. MDT June 21. CNPPID Eagle Viewing Center, Ogallala, Nebraska.

Adjourn for June 1, 2000 at 12:30 p.m.

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