Draft Minutes
Technical Committee Meeting
Eagle Viewing Center
Ogallala, Nebraska
Call to Order
Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. Introductions were made.
Status Reports
Finance Committee/Governance Committee
Dale Strickland reported that the Governors and Deputy Secretary of the Interior signed letters
concurring with extending the Cooperative Agreement to June 30, 2005. Dale also reported that the
Governance Committee (GC) approved funding for the stage gage at Cottonwood Ranch. The $17,000 needed
to fund the gage will be taken from the $40,000 identified for Cottonwood Ranch Monitoring and Research
in 2004.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Report
Sharon Whitmore, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), reported that the DEIS will be distributed on approximately January 21. It is
anticipated that the review period will be until April 2004. Distribution of the NAS report has been
delayed and it is not clear when the report will be available. The FWS intends to provide the draft
Biological Opinion (BO) for review when the NAS report is available.
Bob Henszey reported that the proposal submitted by the Platte River Trust to the NETF was tentatively funded. Bob indicated that he has been working on 404 permits needed to conduct the island/sediment work and that the permit is ready to submit to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Fall 2003 Whooping Crane Monitoring
John MacDonald, Greystone, presented the findings from the Fall 2003 Whooping Crane Monitoring and
Research efforts using a series of handouts. The TC asked questions and provided comments during
John’s presentation. After the presentation the TC established a January 31, 2004 deadline for
providing written comments on the draft report. Greystone will provide a final report by February 15, 2004.
2004 Cottonwood Ranch Monitoring and Research
Clayton Derby reviewed the draft protocol developed by Paul Kinzel for conducting the measurement of cross sections and sediment sampling on Cottonwood Ranch “post-event”. This protocol was developed in response to input from the TC at the November meeting. The protocol established three “triggers” for when measurements would be taken: 1) after an Environmental Account (EA) pulse flow, 2) after any flow equal to or greater than 5,000 cfs, or 3) after July 1, 2004.
Jim Jenniges noted ice recently caused water to backup and freeze on top of the islands recently cleared in the study area at Cottonwood Ranch. When the ice thawed, the channel bed was noticeably different in that some areas had been eroded and other areas had been aggraded. The TC discussed whether or not this was the event needed to trigger re-measurement of transects by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It was generally agreed that this would not be the trigger but that Paul Kinzel should evaluate the changes from ice flows before any re-measurements set in motion from one of the three triggers, if possible. If Paul does visit the site and feels that there was significant channel modification, the TC could decide to request additional funds to conduct more measurements.
The TC agreed that the protocol should be recommended to the Finance Committee (FC) and Governance Committee for funding. It was noted that the protocol identifies a cost estimate of approximately $28,000 and the TC has $23,000 remaining in the 2004 Cottonwood Ranch Monitoring and Research budget after funding of the USGS gage. The TC agreed to recommend to the FC that the $7,500 budgeted for the 2003 Tern and Plover Monitoring Report be transferred to the Cottonwood Ranch Monitoring and Research budget. The report is being completed under the existing Executive Director’s budget.
After the initial presentation, Sharon Whitmore stated that the FWS is trying to get an EA augmented
pulse flow planned for this spring. A draft document outlining the plan was distributed. The plan will
establish a set flow objective at Grand Island of between 3,500 and 5,000 cfs and will investigate
release scenarios that will provide the set flow. Concern was raised that the pulse flow is planned after
tern and plover nest initiation. This will need to be addressed in the plan. A subgroup of Jim Jenniges,
John Shadle, Paul Tebbel, Bob Henszey, and Clayton Derby was established to assist Sharon and the FWS
in furthering the EA pulse flow plan. It was noted that Jeremy Kerkman, Central Nebraska Public
Power and Irrigation District (CNPPID), and Frank Kwapnioski and Dave Webster, Nebraska Public
Power District (NPPD), would also be needed for development of the plan.
Spring 2004 Whooping Crane Monitoring and Research
The TC discussed implementing the Whooping Crane Monitoring Protocol during the spring 2004 migration
season. It was suggested that a repeat of the research effort investigating the effectiveness of
afternoon flights should also be proposed. A replication of the research effort would provide
information on sightability during the spring migration period. Based on the one year of study, the TC
is reluctant to decide if they are going to continue with the early morning flights or change flight
times before further implementation. The TC requested that the Executive Director’s office
review data collected to date on whooping crane use to determine to help in interpretation of the data
from the research flight. The TC agreed to propose implementing the monitoring protocol and a repeat of
the research effort.
Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan
Prior to the meeting the Executive Director’s office distributed a list of 21 issues or questions on the IMRP that had been submitted by the TC but could not be incorporated without further discussion. Following is the list of questions and the direction given on each question by the TC.
- Disagreement with Section VII.F. Channel Capacity
Decision - TC representative making this comment realized that direction was given by the GC and the comment was retracted. - Should the IMRP include the Baseline Document as Appendix?
Reply - The TC discussed the options of attaching the Baseline Document to the IMRP or just referencing the document. It was decided that the document should be attached, but it was left undecided whether it should be included in hard copy or electronically. The TC asked that IMRP clearly state that the Program will not be able to measure against the Baseline Document in most cases there is not a quantitative baseline for most parameters. The Baseline Document will assist in trend analysis, but not necessarily in a classic experimental comparison (e.g., a before-after comparison). - Should the IMRP include the Monitoring and Research Protocols as Appendix?
Decision - The TC agreed that the protocols developed to date be included in the IMRP as an appendix. The IMRP should note that other protocols will be developed and that those included could change. It was not decided if the protocols should be included as hard copies or electronically. - Should the Scientific Peer Review Guidelines be updated for the Program?
Decision - The TC agreed that the Guidelines should be updated for the Program. Mark Czaplewski will work with the Executive Director's office to develop a draft for TC review. - What should be done for pallid sturgeon in the IMRP given the recent decision by the
Governance Committee to do more than monitoring and research (e.g., are the current protocols
identified the correct protocols given habitat management might occur, are the current protocols
still relevant)?
Decision - Concern was raised that the current discussions between the FWS and Colorado to implement physical management in the lower Platte changes the original Program goal for pallid sturgeon. The TC agreed that it is too early to determine if the correct monitoring and research is identified and the subject will be revisited when the FWS and Colorado have reached agreement on what they are doing. The TC agreed to include basic language in the IMRP identifying that specific monitoring and research will be conducted for management conducted for pallids. - How should impacts (if any) from the NAS review be incorporated into the IMRP?
Decision - The TC will wait to review the NAS report before decisions are made on how to incorporate comments. It is likely that the GC will also provide input to the TC on how NAS comments should be incorporated. - Does the IMRP sufficiently document the process and means to implement monitoring and document
baseline conditions for Program lands (per the LAP)?
Decision - The TC asked that the Executive Director's office make sure that the IMRP and Land Plan are compatible and to clearly state in the IMRP that baseline studies should be conducted prior to management activities. - Should a specific protocol be added to the IMRP to investigate the affects of target flows on
whooping cranes?
Decision - Concern was that previous protocols specifically investigating target flow issues had been dropped from the current list. It was noted that the investigations are covered in the budget and that the language describing the protocols may simply need clarification. The Executive Director's office will review older versions of the protocol list and will clarify language in the current list to make sure all objectives relating to research on the target flows are being covered by the IMRP. - Are more protocols needed related to wet meadow/riparian grassland monitoring at the system
and Program Lands level?
Decision - Sharon Whitmore indicated, and the TC agreed, that the wet meadow topic is covered adequately in the protocol list and that the entire suite of activities is included in the Program budget. The TC will need to insure that when protocols are written that the correct information is being collected to address the group's concerns. - Is the IMRP really a Plan or simply Guidelines for a future Plan? The IMRP does not prioritize
or present a firm schedule for any of the proposed Program activities. Should the IMRP include a time
line for some of the major initial monitoring and research activities? Should the IMRP contain a
prioritized list of protocols and specific timeline?
Decision - The TC agreed that additional discussion should be added to the IMRP discussing the general nature of the schedule and then referencing the schedule identified in Table 1. The TC agreed that additional prioritization or scheduling cannot be done at this time. It was noted that the GC has included the entire IMRP budget in the Program budget and that this implies that all activities will be conducted. - Are the current figures clear enough on how/where species and species habitat monitoring is used?
Decision - Yes. - Does the IMRP need to specifically state the objectives and hypotheses to be addressed
through the monitoring and research? Should the IMRP link Program purposes and goals to management
objectives?
Decision - The TC agreed that this topic is adequately covered in the IMRP. - Should the IMRP more explicitly describe the process for tracking non-target species to fulfill
Program purpose A.3 and B and Program Goal 2?
Decision - The TC agreed that the $130,000 identified for this task in Table 1 is sufficient to track other species of concern using existing information collected by other groups. The TC also agreed that the Program should also continue to use information collected by others to track other species of concern. - Should the IMRP include a process for tracking invasive species and mechanisms for action if
management becomes necessary (fyi - some covered in "good neighbor" section of Land Plan)?
Decision - The TC agreed that the process for tracking invasive species should be address in the individual land management plans (identified in the Land Plan) and that the Good Neighbor Policy address any "action" need if management of invasive species is needed. - Should water tracking information and other water component activities requiring monitoring
be included in the IMRP?
Decision - The TC agreed that this topic is adequately addressed by referencing the Water Plan for tracking information. - The IMRP is going to do species monitoring (where they are and what they use) and compare
that to what exists in the study area. There was concern that the Programs relatively small effect
and changes in management of the river and adjacent upland areas effecting both used and non-used
sites will confound understanding of the effect of the Program How are we going to separate out
Program influences from natural influences? Will there be any non-management areas to compare to?
How long before we start using data we collected to evaluate the existing hypotheses? Can we even
collect data fast enough to keep up with changing hypotheses?
Decision - It was agreed that there is significant ongoing management in the Platte River and this will continue, therefore influencing "non-management areas", but that there is little to nothing that can be done to stop this management. It was agreed that the analysis of monitoring and research data during the program would be complicated by the confounding of multiple effects and that these confounding factors would necessarily be considered when management decisions are made based on monitoring and research data. It was suggested that information collected should be presented more regularly to the GC. - The Program has a problem in that there is a very small number of individuals representing the
target species and that there is limited use of the area by the target species. Does the IMRP and
it's associated protocols need to clearly identify when the protocols are obtaining multiple use
sites of the same whooping crane(s), sturgeon, terns or plovers and address the limitations of using
that data both on a local scale and a population scale? (this has been addressed in the Whooping Crane
Protocols, should it be included in the overall IMRP or separate protocols?)
Decision - The TC agreed that this issue is addressed in the WC protocol and should be bolstered, if possible, in the IMRP. - Has the IMRP explored in enough detail the option of doing studies more relevant to the entire
populations like radio/satellite tracking of whooping cranes, studies of predator control on known tern
and plover nesting sites, pallid sturgeon stocking programs, etc.? Studies of how the Platte River
relates to the life requirements and surrounding areas is the only way we are going to address some of
the concerns people have over the disproportionate amount of effort that seems to be taking place on
the Platte for the target species.
Decision - Decision on this issue was delayed until the NAS report is available. - There is a large amount of confusion about what the objectives of management are, whether it
is land management, flow management or a combination of both. Ultimately we must show some benefit
(increased reproductive output, more individuals ...?) to the species to test the hypothesis that our
management improved conditions. How will the IMRP tell us if we are achieving management goals and
more importantly did achieving those goals have a positive impact on the species? Will the IMRP
quantify changes in property lines or is that compliance monitoring?
Decision - The current effort being implemented by the Platte River Trust and others and partially funded by the Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund will help address this issue. The TC agreed that IMRP should not be changed to address these questions at this time. - Concern with use/misuse of the term "habitat". Should it be defined early on to indicate that
for the IMRP "habitat" is not relying on species use, but more on meeting a set of physical habitat
parameters?
Decision - Jim Jenniges will work with the Executive Director's office to identify areas where this should be corrected. - Concern that past presentations on the EIS/BO (e.g., need to clear and level X acres of
islands by year Y of the Program) indicate that the current observational monitoring approach
(e.g., let the species define habitat, what are the species selecting for, etc) included in the IMRP
will not reveal information quickly enough. Should the focus of the IMRP be changed to a more
structured experimental, research oriented approach?
Decision - If the Parsons-EIS Team research is implemented, this is not an issue. All activities identified by the Parsons-EIS Team are included in Table 1 and in the budget. The TC agreed that the IMRP should not be changed.
Baseline Document
Prior to the meeting the Executive Director's office distributed a list of issues or questions on the
Baseline Document that had been submitted by the TC but could not be incorporated without further
discussion. Following is the list of questions and the direction given for each question by the TC.
General Topic
- One point that is still being addressed is to insure that the references are to the primary data
source (e.g., Smith 1999; NOT Smith 1999 in Johnson 2000). If they primary references cannot be found,
should the discussion be deleted or should the secondary reference continue to be used?
Decision - The TC agreed that original references should be used if possible. If they cannot be found the TC will discuss the proper citation on a case-by-case basis.
- Should Appendix A of the Whooping Crane Section (a brief annotated bibliography of three "keystone" papers related to the Aransas-Wood Buffalo population but not limited to the Platte River)
be significantly bolstered?
Decision - The current list and level of detail is generally acceptable but the TC will consider the need for expansion on a case-by-case basis. - Should results from the TC's spring and fall whooping crane monitoring be included in the
baseline?
Decision - The TC agreed that the information should be included as final reports are available. - Should detection trials information (i.e., decoys) from the TC's monitoring effort be included?
Decision - The TC agreed that the discussion regarding decoys should be removed. - Should a copy of the FWS field form used to collect data (primarily pre-TC monitoring) be
included in the Baseline Document as an appendix. Shows what data were supposed to be collected at
all use sites.
Decision - The TC agreed that the Baseline Document should rely on the analysis conducted by Austin and Richert and that a copy should not be included as an appendix. - Should the baseline be more detailed in the methods used to collect use site information?
Should the baseline be more specific in identifying differences in data collection methods between
various studies (e.g., cross-sectional data collected pre and post TC monitoring protocol
implementation)?
Decision - The TC agreed that the Baseline Document should rely on Austin and Richert for methods used to collect use site information and that the Baseline Document should describe methods in a general way or state that they are undocumented pre-TC protocol implementation. The Baseline should not be more specific in identifying differences in data collection methods. - Should the baseline document explain what data are collected at whooping crane uses sites
(see number 3 above?), by who, when, where, how, at what special and temporal scales?
Decision - No, the Baseline should reference the raw data sets housed with the FWS. - Some of the information contained in the baseline document is derived from field measurements
(e.g., open channel widths are calculated from cross-sectional information). Should other parameters
be derived and reported in the baseline document?
Decision - No, this can be calculated later if needed.
Pallid Sturgeon
- Should tables and information related to "probable" and "unconfirmed" pallid sturgeon be
included in the baseline document? The information collected and maintained by the Nebraska Game
and Parks Commission (NGPC) contains this information along with information on "confirmed" pallid
sturgeon.
Decision - There was not consensus on inclusion of probable and unconfirmed pallid sturgeon information, but the TC referenced an early decision that had this information being contained in the Baseline Document if it is clearly identified as to its level of certainty. It will remain in the Baseline Document. - Should the baseline contain water chemistry data, geomorphology data, and hydraulic modeling
from the lower Platte that was not collected at a specific pallid sturgeon location? Some of this was
collected at larval drift study locations, bridges, "convenient" locations, etc.
Decision - This information will be left in the Baseline Document. There was not consensus on this issue.
- The document does not include a reference to first piping plover and first least tern nesting
occurrences on the central Platte River. Is this part of the NGPC database (1982), or is there another
reference?
Decision - The first documented nesting in the Lexington to Chapman reach was described by Faanes in 1983. There was earlier nesting just upstream of the Lexington bridge and this should be referenced.
- Should the list in the baseline be the same as the Land Plan? Currently the IMRP has about
90 species, the Land Plan has about 15.
Decision - The title used in the Baseline Document should not be the same as the one used in the Land Plan (e.g., both should not be "other species of concern"). It should be clarified in the baseline and maybe in the text of the IMRP what the list represents. The lists should not be the same. - Should the list be expanded beyond the current categories (e.g., state listed) to include
species of economic benefit (e.g., deer), species of management concern (e.g., reed canary grass),
or other?
Decision - The TC agreed that individuals could provide a list of species and reason for inclusion on the list. - Should this section continue to just be a list of species that are of "concern"? Or,
should it provide some level (to be defined) of current conditions?
Decision - The TC agreed that the section should remain as is.
- Should "vegetation communities of concern" be added to this section? How would these be
defined and quantified?
Decision - The TC agreed to include State Heritage listed communities if contained in the study area. These areas should be defined and identified if possible on the GIS map. - Concern was raised that the 1998 land cover/use GIS database developed by the BOR may not
adequately address all landscape types that might be important to the Program (e.g., palustrine wetlands,
wet meadows). This is the database that the TC asked be the focus of the Landscape section. Are there
are, more accurate data that capture all of the landscape types the Program might be interested in?
Decision - This problem should be stated in the "data adequacy section". The TC agreed that there is not a better coverage at this time but that in future efforts better definitions and ground truthing is needed.
Future Meetings
Participants
| Dale Strickland | Executive Director |
| Paul Tebbel | Audubon |
| Phil Ogle | Wyoming |
| Sharon Whitmore | FWS |
| Jeff Runge | FWS |
| Mark Peyton | CNPPID |
| Phil Soenksen | USGS |
| Mark Czaplewski | Central Platte NRD |
| Kevin Urie | Denver Water |
| Jim Jenniges | NPPD |
| John Shadle | NPPD |
| Bob Henszey | PRT |
| John MacDonald | Greystone |
| Clayton Derby | Executive Director's Office |
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