Results of 1995 Platte River Basin Ecosystem Symposium Research Needs Forum

Michael T. Eckert and Thomas G. Franti, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Cooperative Extension - Platte Watershed Program, Lincoln, Nebraska

The 1995 Platte River Basin Ecosystem Symposium was a forum designed to provide an interactive opportunity for researchers and managers to learn about research in the Platte River Basin and to discuss current and future research needs in the ecosystem. The symposium was sponsored by the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension's Platte Watershed Program in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region VII, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the UNL Water Center/Environmental Programs. The following is a synopsis of a research Needs Forum conducted during the 1995 Symposium to discuss future research needs of the Platte River Basin.

INTRODUCTION

A Research Needs Forum was conducted at various stages of the 1995 Symposium to engage the registrants in a guided discussion of what the future research priorities in the Platte ecosystem should be. The forum consisted of four elements.

I. A Research Needs Survey designed to allow registrants to identify their area of expertise and what they perceive to be the priority research issues on the Platte.

II. Four Small Group Work Sessions that were categorized around the major research areas the registrants indicated in the Research Needs Survey (I)

III. A Panel Discussion composed of a diverse mix of research and policy constituents from throughout the basin. The panelists focused on what they perceived as the priorities in the watershed and reflected on the priorities established in the small group work sessions.

IV. A closing Research Needs Priority Survey asked individual registrants to personally rank the three priority areas that were compiled by each of the four small group work sessions.

The feedback on the Research Needs Forum was very positive (23 of 27 registrants ranked it as useful on the symposium evaluation form). We feel it achieved its goals of promoting interaction among the registrants and engaging them in a cumulative series of discussions that demanded individual and group examinations of the research needs present in the Platte Watershed. The results of the four parts of the forum are outlined below.

RESEARCH NEEDS SURVEY

The first activity of the Research Needs Forum was a Research Needs Survey. The intent of this survey was to identify issues the registrants' perceived as priorities and to subsequently classify the small group work sessions around these priorities. The survey asked each registrant to list his or her name, area of interest or expertise, and answer the following question: In your opinion what are the top three Platte River ecosystem research needs? The results were:

Of the 52 surveys returned, 40 registrants responses were generally classified as follows:

1. Aquatic Habitats - 12 persons
   
2. Flow Quantity Requirements - 12 persons
   
3. Wet Meadows - 9 persons
   
4. Riparian Habitats - 7 persons
   (twelve of the participants' answers did not fall into these four general categories)

SMALL GROUP WORK SESSIONS

As a result of this survey, the small group work sessions were classified into the four general areas listed above. Four registrants moderated these small groups.

Kyle Hoagland, Associate Professor of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, moderated the Aquatic Habitat group.

Tom Franti, Assistant Professor of Biological Systems Engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, moderated the Flow Quantity Requirement groups.

Julie Savidge, Associate Professor of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, moderated the Riparian Habitat group.

Paul Currier, Deputy Director and Plant and Wetland Ecologist for the Platte River Whooping Crane Trust, moderated the Wet Meadows group.

Each small group was asked to answer the following questions:

1. What major questions are currently well understood in this subject area? or, what is our current state of knowledge about the system?
   
2. What major questions need to be answered? or, what knowledge do we need to obtain?
   
3. What are the top three priority questions that should be answered? or, what is most needed now?

After an hour of discussion, the moderators reported the top three priorities in their group, as follows:

AQUATIC HABITAT: (included four priorities)

1. Establishing existing status of communities/habitats across temporal and spatial (population, communities, ecosystem, landscape) scales.
   
2. Ascertaining ecosystem function (mechanism, interactions, productivity) - key linkages.
   
3. Determining influences of anthropogenic impacts (non-point source - nutrients, pesticides)
   
4. Clarifying management objectives/determining educational and decision-making needs.

FLOW QUANTITY REQUIREMENT:

1. Flow requirements to restore the desired ecosystem including threatened and endangered species.
   
2. Socio-economic impacts of the flows per issue #1 (above).
   
3. Determine how much water is in the system.

RIPARIAN HABITAT:

1. Identify goals and management objectives of what should be there? Need to obtain consensus (but who should be involved).
   
2. Need to evaluate economic impacts, i.e. from habitat preservation.
   
3. "Ecological Health Index" for monitoring - need to know if moving towards goals. Need long-term commitment and monitoring efforts. (Also discussed need to study upper reaches of Platte (CO, WY), private lands - not just protected lands, and the need to tie hydrology to biology.)
   

WET MEADOWS:

1. Description and classification, historical distribution, and long term succession trends.
   
2. Hydrology and biology relationships.
   
3. Landscape analysis - how meadows fit in other habitat types and native managed areas.
   

The priorities within each of these areas do contain some unique issues, however, there are several priorities that occurred in more in than one group, they include:

The relationship between hydrology and biology
The need to evaluate economic impacts of modifications
The need to clearly identify management objectives

A complete transcript of the information that was recorded on flip-charts for each group is included at the end of this section.

PANEL DISCUSSION

The Research Need Assessment Forum continued with a Panel Discussion that included the following members:

Jay Maher (Moderator), FERC Relicensing Coordinator for the Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District
Ann Bleed, State Hydrologist for the Nebraska Department of Water Resources
Paul Currier, Deputy Director of the Platte River Whooping Crane Trust
Ed Peters, Professor of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife at UNL
John Shadle, Environmental Supervisor with the Nebraska Public Power District
John Sidle, Biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The panelists were given the set of priorities identified in the small group work sessions and asked to reflect and comment on those priorities and to add other priorities that they perceive from their experiences within the ecosystem. The general issues discussed included:

Evaluating what we want the Platte River to look like (including homo sapiens), and what we want the river to be in the future
Analyzing the socio-economic impacts of flow requirements in the basin
Changing the attitudes of human communities through education and "good" science
Developing a forum of scientists to look at current data and develop hypotheses that can be tested in-depth.
Further researching the "processes" of the ecosystem using:

Integrated Resource Management Models

Major "interest groups" that will meet, plan, and be involved in such research

Realizing and acknowledging that different organizations have different priorities

Some general comments that were given from the attendees included:

Utilizing team approaches to address the research needs and get away from the "top-down" approaches that are currently used.
Establishing some long-term ecological monitoring programs that will be needed for effective management of the ecosystem.

As the Moderator, Jay Maher summarized the major priorities from the panel discussion as:

A cooperative determination of what we want the Platte to look like
An attitude adjustment among people through good science and education
The need to test proposed alternatives before implementing
The incorporation of humans into the ecosystem analysis
The need to understand that priorities will differ from organization to organization

Although the panelist's comments were more general in scope, comparing them with those of the small group work sessions revealed the following similarities:

1. the need to identify the goals and management vision of the Platte
2. the need to incorporate humans into the ecosystem and evaluate the economic impact on them
3. the need for long-term monitoring efforts
4. the general need for more comprehensive data that is gathered and analyzed through sound scientific methods that are generally proven and accepted.

RESEARCH NEEDS PRIORITY SURVEY
(individual vs. group rankings)

The final component of the research needs forum asked the registrants to indicate how they would individually rank the top three research priorities that were previously ranked by the small groups. This survey was given out immediately following after the first three components of the Research Needs Forum were complete. It was designed to allow some measurement on the amount of consensus gained throughout the forum. Twenty-four (24) surveys were returned with the following results:

(Please return to page 2-3 to reference the group rankings for each area)

Flow Quantity Requirements - of the 24 respondents:

12 ranked the priorities exactly the same.
5 switched #2 and #3, leaving #1 as ranked
3 ranked #2 as #1, randomly followed by the group's third and first priority
2 ranked #3 as #1, randomly followed by the group's first and the second priority
2 would be classified as other (write-in responses coupled with re-rankings)

SYNOPSIS - 17 of 24 ranked #1 as #1

Riparian Habitat, of the 24 Respondents:

8 ranked the priorities exactly the same
10 switched #2 with #3, leaving #1 as ranked
3 ranked #2 as their #1, randomly followed by the group's first and third priority
3 would be classified as other (write-in responses coupled with re-rankings)

SYNOPSIS - 18 of 24 ranked #1 as #1 and 11 ranked #3 higher #2

Aquatic Habitat, of the 24 Respondents:

4 ranked the priorities exactly the same
6 ranked #1 and #2 the same, but switched #3 with #4
2 ranked #1as their #1 with the others in random order
6 switched #1 with #2, randomly followed by the group's third and fourth priority
3 ranked #3 as #1, the groups #1as #2, randomly followed by the others
3 would be classified as other (write-in responses coupled with re-rankings)

SYNOPSIS - 10 of 24 ranked #1 and #2 the same, 21 ranked #1 as #1 or #2

Wet Meadows, of the 24 Respondents:

10 ranked the priorities exactly the same
2 ranked #1 as their #1, but switched #2 with #3
6 switched #1 with #2 and left #3 as #3
5 ranked #3 as their #1 followed by the groups #1 and #2
1 would be classified as other (write-in response coupled with re-rankings)

SYNOPSIS - 23 of 24 ranked #1 as either #1 or #2

In conclusion, the synopses indicate that in most areas, there is a relatively clear priority that has been identified and reiterated by the individual responses. The Aquatic Habitat area appears to be the most undefined area as far as general priorities are concerned. Coincidently that this group had difficulty agreeing on three priorities. It is also evident that the priorities for Wet Meadow research area precisely defined, as the #1 group ranking received either a #1 or #2 ranking from 23 of the 24 individual respondents. Additionally the Flow Quantity Requirement was identically ranked by ½ of the respondents, the greatest agreement of the four areas.

TRANSCRIPTS OF SMALL GROUPS WORK SESSIONS

The following is a comprehensive transcript of the issues and points that were discussed in each of the small group work sessions. This information was taken verbatim from the flip-charts that were used by the moderators.

AQUATIC HABITATS

1. What major questions are currently well understood in this area? or, what is our current state of knowledge?

   Taxonomic composition (present)
   Historical
   Discharge and basic water quality (cover, substrate) - (USGS)
   Ground water quality (some portions, e.g. Central Platte)
   Riparian characterizations
   Stabilization structures
   

2. What major questions need to be answered? or, what knowledge do we need to obtain?

   Sediment dynamics (transport, load)
   

   • role in channel morphology & biology

   Effects of discharge on morphology & biology
   More complete flora/fauna taxonomic assessments (BACID)
   Community ecology (incl. watershed)/habitat
   Surface-ground water interactions in relation to system's ecology (incl. NPS)
   NPS (nutrients, pesticides) effects
   Landscape - level effects in watershed
   Historic background (ecological)/context, incl. flows
   What kind of ecosystem do we want? (based on a series of informed judgements; interactive process)
   Centralization of data on Platte (incl. basin W.S.)
   

3. What are the priority questions that need to be answered? or, what knowledge is most needed now?

   Establishing existing status of communities/habitats across temporal and spatial (pop., comm., landscape) scales
   Ascertaining ecosystem function (i.e. mechanisms, interactions, productivity)
   Determining influences of anthropogenic impacts (NPS - nutrients, pesticides)
   Clarifying management objectives & determining educational/decision-making needs
   

FLOW QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS

1. What major questions are currently well understood in this area? or, what is our current state of knowledge?

   Flow records at gauging stations
   Flows from Lake McConaughy
   System operation
   

   Irrigation. Canals, Diversions, etc.:

   Interaction of ground water & surface water
   Relationship of power/water
   Municipal pumping rates
   Water quality
   Snow melt relationships
   Gaining vs. losing segments
   Demand of water over past 50 years
   

2. What major questions need to be answered? or, what knowledge do we need to obtain?

   Economic and Social Effects of Flow Management (ecosystem):

   Define desired ecosystem
   Flow requirements for ecosystem for threatened and endangered species
   Flow requirements for social and economic growth
   

   Social & Economic Flow Requirements

   Ice jams - flooding prevention
   Irrigation - Agriculture
   Industry
   Municipalities
   Power use
   Private
   Wildlife
   Recreation
   

3. What are the priority questions that need to be answered? or, what knowledge is most needed now?

   Flow requirements to restore the desired ecosystem, including T & E species.
   What are the socio-economic impacts? What are impacts of water conservation measures? What are impacts of re-regulating surface flows?
   How much water is in the system? Define desired ecosystem?
   

RIPARIAN HABITAT

1. What major questions are currently well understood in this area? or, what is our current state of knowledge?

   Habitat - we know what it looks like
   Physical description - video, maps, infrared 1:24,000 satellite imagery
   Vegetation composition, structure
   Soil type boundaries in GIS
   Species info (strengths & weaknesses):
   

   • threatened and endangered
     Game
     Others
     Inventory of most
     

   Agricultural abiotic impacts
   

2. What major questions need to be answered? or, what knowledge do we need to obtain?

   Long term monitoring (100's years)
   Development of models
   Fill data gap for upstream areas (other than Central Platte, e.g. Wyoming)
   Fill data gap for other species
   Broaden perspective
   Private land
   Impacts of regulated flows on riparian habitat
   Human population growth - human use, hunting, municipal, land use/mngt., agricultural policy
   Forest habitats - sources or sinks
   Identify goals, obtain consensus
   Economic impacts from habitat preservation
   Ground water quality with habitat preservation
   Ecosystem health index for monitoring changes
   Riparian includes:
   

   • forested area
   • sandbars - river channels
     
   • grasslands
     
3. What are the priority questions that need to be answered? or, what knowledge is most needed now?

   Identify goals and management objectives. What should be there? Need to obtain consensus (but who should be involved?).
   Economic impacts, i.e., from habitat preservation
   "Ecological Health Index" for monitoring. Need to know if moving towards goals. Need long-term commitment and monitoring.
   

WET MEADOWS

1. What major questions are currently well understood in this area? or, what is our current state of knowledge?

   Cranes use it
   Connect rivers/groundwater
   List of plants
   List of birds
   Some measures of biodiversity
   Land use (GIS)
   Breeding bird data
   ASCS and other government land use data
   

2. What major questions need to be answered? or, what knowledge do we need to obtain?

   People's perceptions of wet meadows
   

   1. saturated soils
      
   2. not necessarily standing water
      
   3. sedges
      

   Do we need a better definition? - Yes, management implications
   Needs:
   

   1. hydrology
      
   2. soils
      
   3. species
      
   4. locations
      
   5. long-term plant community changes
      

   How do plant communities change under different management regimes?
   

   • Fire
     Agricultural use
     Also look at:
     
     1. macro invertebrates
        
     2. nutrient cycling
        
     3. long-term productivity
        
     4. small mammals
        
     5. agrichemical runoff effects
        

     Show the values for regulatory purposes
     Biodiversity is affected
     Flood retention
     Groundwater recharge
     Groundwater quality
     

   Water Quality/Agrichemical Runoff Effects
   Hydrology Understood (relationships between biology and hydrology)
   

   • Relationship to biology not understood
   • Hydrologic requirements (for particular species):
     
     1. How long?
        
     2. How often?
        
     3. When?
        

   Historical Changes
   

   • Some work in progressz
   • Succession trends
   • Hydrologic/Physical habitat changes
     

   How Do Wet Meadows Fit In?
   

   • Natural & managed habitat
   • To what extent restorable
     
3. What are the priority questions that need to be answered? or, what knowledge is most needed now?

   Better Definition of Wet Meadows/Grassland Complex
   

   • Hydrology
   • Species
   • Soils
   • Locations
   • Long term plant community changes
   • Historical changes (physical/biological)
   • Succession trends
     

   Understanding How Hydrology Relates to Biology
   

   • Water quantity/quality
     

   How/Where Do Wet Meadows Fit in Ecosystem? How Are They Influenced Under Different Management Regimes?
   

    

    

   Last updated on 7.5.98