See other minutes at: Technical Committee / Land Committee / Water Management Committee / Water Action Plan Committee
Final Minutes
Governance Committee Meeting
January 21, 2000
Quality Inn
North Platte, Nebraska
Agenda and Minutes
Mike Besson, Governance Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. Mike suggested the agenda be altered by delaying discussion of models being used in the EIS/ESA analysis until after committee reports. Agenda was changed. Introductions were made.
The draft minutes of the December Governance Committee (GC) meeting were reviewed. Dale Strickland read suggested changes and distributed a copy of a lengthy suggested change. Minutes were approved as changed by consensus.
Executive Director's Report
Dale Strickland, Executive Director, reported that there were no new contracts signed since the last GC meeting and then gave a brief review on the progress of existing contracts. Dale noted that CDR Associates had requested additional funds to facilitate the Land Ownership Entity Workshop and that this topic would be covered during the Finance Committee Report.
Water Action Plan Committee Report
John Lawson reported that the Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) had met on January 20, 2000. John noted that Boyle Engineering had provided the WAPC a draft Water Action Plan Memo for consideration. The memo provided detail necessary for cumulative analysis of the 13 projects identified at the December WAPC meeting. the Committee spent considerable time discussing each project. Colorado noted that the Beebe Draw project may not be possible. However, the Committee decided the project would remain in the memo until the cumulative analysis of all alternatives was completed. Blaine Dwyer, Boyle Engineering, will start redrafting the memo based on his notes of the discussion. Written comments on the memo are due to Blaine by February 11, 2000. John stressed that the current list of 13 projects being analyzed does not commit any state to the projects; it is only a starting point.
John reported that the Committee would be starting to consider cumulative affects and water availability from the various projects through modeling. It was pointed out during the meeting that it will be hard to determine how much water is coming from each project and that the contribution from each project will depend on how they are sequenced into the model. Curt Brown, EIS Team, will be asked to sequence the projects in several different ways so the differences can be seen. John explained that while the WAPC has been using the services of the EIS Team to run information through their models, it is important to keep the EIS efforts separate from the WAPC efforts. The EIS Team will be conducting their own analysis of the information for the EIS.
To assist in the development of an outline for the Water Action Plan, the Committee asked Curt Brown to provide them with a list of topics the EIS Team will be considering in their analysis. This will help ensure the Action Plan covers all topics need for the EIS.
John noted that each state had provided a list of principles for guiding the development of the Action Plan. Some of the principles were common between the states and others were unique to just that state. John will compile the lists by combining the common principles and will keep the other principles separate by state.
Other actions taken during the WAPC meeting included asking Curt Brown to investigate whether or not pulse flows could be evaluated in the various models and instructing Boyle Engineering to sort the costs of each project in a tabular form. the Committee also asked Blaine Dwyer to provide a written copy of his notes from the discussion of the alternatives before proceeding in redrafting the memo.
Future Depletions Reports
Wyoming
Mike Purcell presented Wyoming's Preliminary Concepts-Draft Depletion Mitigation Program (see attachment). Mike noted that some of the technical information used in the draft report is from Nebraska vs. Wyoming and could not be released. Mike reported that unlike Colorado and Nebraska, whose maximum depletion was in 1996, Wyoming's maximum depletion was in the early to mid-1980's. With only 200,000 people living in the North Platte basin in Wyoming, Mike explained that the largest amount of water used (over 90%) was for irrigation. Mike explained that Wyoming was proposing using "sub-basins" when determining maximum depletions and when Wyoming would get credit in a water banking system. Mike reported that that the sub-basins with storage water have little fluctuation in water use (e.g., 2-3%) whereas the sub-basins without storage water have wider fluctuations in water use (e.g., 10-20%). Wyoming suggested the concept of an envelope to address concerns that they may be seeking credit for water use below the historical maximums. Mike explained what Wyoming is proposing/thinking in regards to municipal, industrial, and other water uses. Mike also reported on Wyoming's multi-level monitoring program for determine water use within each sub-basin and for determining when maximum water use levels have been exceeded. Please see attached "Preliminary Concepts-Draft Depletion Mitigation Program, Platte River, Wyoming" for more complete information on Wyoming's draft depletion plan.
After Mike Purcell's presentation, several GC members and other expressed concerns regarding various areas of Wyoming's draft plan and asked for clarifications. Some of the concerns raised included Wyoming's suggestions that they not be required to mitigate water if they are above maximum use but target flows are being met through natural flows and use of sub-basins instead of entire basin. It was decided that comments should be submitted to Wyoming and the others states regarding their respective depletion reports by March 1, 2000.
Nebraska
Jim Cook presented the current information and ideas being discussed in the development of Nebraska's Future Depletion Plan. Jim noted that there are various elected bodies that need to buy into the final plan and those representatives are involved in the Committee to develop the plan. Nebraska feels that any significant new water development in their state will likely be using groundwater. Nebraska will be using the results and models from the current Cooperative Hydrology Study (COHYST) to determine the effects of groundwater development on future depletions. Jim used a series of overheads (see attachment) to help describe such things as what would be protected through mitigation, how mitigation obligations would be determined, and who would be responsible for mitigation. Jim presented information related to agriculture, municipal, and industrial use as well as deminimis uses. Jim indicated that the state would be responsible for mitigating uses that began between 7/1/1997 and 12/31/2001. After this time, the water user would be responsible for mitigation. Jim concluded his presentation by describing the current information on monitoring of uses and reporting of information to the Governance Committee during the Program.
Several individuals asked Jim questions and for clarification of points after his presentations. Some of the questions included asking when something more definitive would be available from Nebraska, number of new wells since signing of Cooperative Agreement, clarification on frequency of reporting, and clarification on how Nebraska will consider mitigation measures when target flows are being met. An individual also asked if Nebraska would consider running their information through an SDF model before completion of the COHYST. Comments should be submitted to Nebraska by March 1, 2000.
Colorado
Wendy Weiss presented Colorado's proposal to address future depletions associated with new water-related activities in the North Platte River Basin, Jackson County, Colorado (see attachment). Colorado's Plan for Future Depletions in the South Platte Basin is included in the Cooperative Agreement as Tab 3B. Wendy noted that there are already limitations on the amount of possible irrigated land in Jackson County by the North Platte Decree. Wendy explained that anything within the decree would be considered current uses and no mitigation will be required. Minimal questions were asked after Wendy's presentation. Comments should be submitted to Colorado by March 1, 2000.
After the presentations from each state, Margot Zallen said that the FWS would be using projected depletions when doing the Biological Opinion on the preferred alternative for the proposed Program. She indicated that the Service might be asking each state for supplemental information. She indicated that any new data would be helpful for the cumulative impacts section of the Programmatic Environmental Impacts Statement.
Subcommittee Reports
Water Management Committee
John Lawson, Water Management Committee (WMC) Chair, provided the report. The WMC spent a portion of their meeting discussion tracking and accounting issues. Colorado and Nebraska presented how their states conduct tracking and accounting. John reported that Wyoming's report is currently being reviewed internally. These reports will be compiled for milestone W14-1. During the meeting Mark Butler, FWS, provided his interpretation of what will be needed by the Service for compliance related to water projects. Butler felt that besides simply building and operating water projects, there will need to be a definition of project operations and some data collection illustrating the project is being operated compliance with approved plans. Mark presented data requirements for Tamarack, Pathfinder Modification Project, and the Environmental Account. Other discussion points during the meeting included the consideration for a source for up-to-date tracking information on the Internet. The three states will be meeting to discuss definition of new water in the near future. Finally, the Technical Committee requested a list of water related studies currently being conducted in the critical habitat area.
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District Request
Mary Jane Graham reminded the GC and others of the information provided to them at the December meeting on modifying the Administrative Plan for Managing Water Commitments. Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central) had experienced some implementation issues when the Environmental Account became active. Central asked the GC for a signed letter from Mike Besson, Governance Committee Chair, to Don Kraus concurring with the manner in which Central changed the Plan (see attachment). The letter from the GC will be forwarded to the FERC when Central submits the proposed changes (see attachment). At the end of the meeting, Mike Besson asked if all had read the information and if he had permission to sign the letter on behalf of the GC. Ralph Morgenweck replied that the FWS had some suggested wording changes, and when the changes had been made, they would be agreeable to the letter. All others agreed. Mike said that he would sign the letter after the changes were made.
Subcommittee Reports - continued
Land Committee
Rhodell Jameson and Vernon Nelson, Land Committee (LC) Co-Chairs, provided the report. Rhodell started by reminding the GC and others of the upcoming Land Ownership Entity facilitated work shop January 31-February 2 in North Platte, Nebraska. Vernon noted that Carroll Sheldon and others felt that the Third Party Impacts Analysis was not sufficient. The Co-Chairs and other LC members felt that it was sufficient and answered many questions and concerns. There are no LC meetings scheduled until action is needed.
Lisa McDonald from Hazen and Sawyer gave a presentation on the Third Party Impacts analysis recently completed. Lisa reported that many comments were received on the draft report and that the comments were addressed and new economic information is included in the final draft. Lisa's presentation included describing the methods used, descriptions of the three scenarios, and results of the analysis. The analysis suggested that there was an overall positive economic impact under each of the three scenarios. The final draft will be ready the week of January 24 and then there will be a short comment period. The final report will be ready early February. Several questions were asked after the presentation. Vernon reported that overall, the land component of the Program will have a very small economic impact on the region. Vernon also noted that many of the counties are still concerned over taxes.
Dale Strickland discussed the comments received and how they were incorporated into the most recent version of the draft Habitat Protection Plan outline. Comments and concerns included concern over the budget, concern over inclusion of the "hypothetical" complex based on the Joint Study, and concern that the plan did not say perpetual protection was the method of protection. The Task Force attempted to address each of these concerns as well as others expressed. Mary Jane Graham said that she was still concerned with the inclusion of the "hypothetical" complex figure because if 10 of these complexes were protected, the Program would be protecting close to 38,000 acres of habitat and not 29,000 acres. There was consensus the figure should be removed. The GC also approved the outline as amended as a working draft from which the complete Habitat Protection Plan could be drafted. Margot Zallen asked that the plan and GC tax statement be distributed to participants of the Land Ownership Entity workshop.
Technical Committee
Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, gave the report. Paul noted that the TC had not met since the last GC meeting. Paul gave an update on topics for discussion at the January 25-26 meeting and noted that the "R3-1 Document" being worked on by the FWS would possibly be ready by the end of March.
Ralph Morgenweck provided an update on the designation of piping plover critical habitat and distributed a fact sheet (see attachment).
Outreach Committee
Jeff Buettner, Outreach Committee (OC) Chair, provided the report. Jeff updated the GC on outreach activities conducted during December and January and noted that efforts are continuing through various means. Jeff reported that Diane Katzenberger had given a presentation to several of the counties in the central Platte Region regarding the Cooperative Agreement. She reported to Jeff that there was less concern by the counties regarding the issue of water contamination from waterfowl than was reported at a previous meeting by local landowner Carroll Sheldon. The OC continues to work on question/answer brochures for the Environmental Account and Groundwater issues. They have also been considering running a series of small ads in newspapers drawing attention to the Cooperative Agreement and where to obtain more information. GC agreed that the OC should continue to develop the ads.
Finance Committee
Larry Todd, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, provided the report. Larry reported that invoices have been received from the Executive Director's office, WEST Inc., and Kearney Area Community Foundation. The FC and GC accepted the amount of $29,379.41 for January invoices. A worksheet has been developed that outlines disbursements, expenses, and budget remaining (see attachment). The FC had received a letter from Howard Propst expressing concern regarding the draft Program budget. The FC will address the draft budget at its February 8 meeting. At the meeting, the FC will recommend budget ceilings for each of the Committees. the Committees will then be charged with determining what activities can and cannot be conducted under that ceiling. It was suggested that it is possible that compliance cannot be achieved under the budget ceilings. Larry presented the Third Quarter Funding Agreements and there was agreement from the GC.
Larry also reported that the FC had discussed the Executive Director's Scope of Work (SOW). The original expectations of the Executive Director were for him to assist the Committees in developing documents and to provide statistical support as part of his duties. At the FC meeting, representatives from each of the states and DOI signed a letter to the Nebraska Community Foundation clarifying the SOW. The GC also agreed with the letter and Mike Besson, GC Chair, signed the letter for the GC.
Larry reported that CDR had sent a letter to the Executive Director asking for a budget increase for conducting the Land Ownership Entity workshop. In the letter, CDR outlined several areas they felt were an increase in their scope. The FC gave preliminary approval based on the opinions of the LC Co-chairs. Vernon Nelson responded that he did not agree with the budget increase because of various factors. Budget increase for CDR was tabled until after the workshop.
Milestone Reports
Wyoming - Mike Besson indicated nothing new to report.
Colorado - Kent Holsinger reported that they are in the process of hiring a consultant to address their future depletions report for the North Platte River Basin.
Nebraska - Dayle Williamson distributed their quarterly written report (see attachment). Nebraska continues to work on their future depletions milestone and other milestones.
Department of the Interior - Bob McCue distributed a written quarterly report for milestones being addressed by the FWS (see attachment). Curt Brown commented that the discussion of models later in the meeting would be the milestone report from the EIS Team.
Pallid Sturgeon
Ralph started the discussion by reviewing the FWS position on pallid sturgeon expressed in a December 30, 1999, letter to Mike Besson, GC Chair. Ralph concluded by saying that the Program may need to take specific actions for pallid sturgeon as more is learned through analysis of existing data and "testing the assumption". Additionally, he noted that water management for the target bird species in the central Platte may improve habitat for the pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte.
Mike Besson asked what the Program's responsibilities were for pallid sturgeon. Ralph explained that the FWS believes that the responsibilities were outlined in the October 6 draft IMRC as to what the Program was responsible for.
There was discussion from Don Kraus and Mark Czaplewski on an Inter-local Agreement between several NRDs, NGPC, and the Districts on pallid sturgeon. The groups are planning to spend approximately $1 million over the next five years for pallid sturgeon monitoring and research. Ralph Morgenweck briefly described activities currently under way for pallid sturgeon research in the lower Platte. There was strong feeling from the GC that these were the types of activities outside of the Program that the Program would be looking at for monitoring and research. It was agreed that the Program will need to "fill-in the holes" for information not collected through these types of efforts.
Ralph again noted that at this time the question could not be answered regarding what else is needed for pallid sturgeon but that a "place-holder" should be included in the Program for them. Mary Jane Graham asked what he meant with "place-holder" and said that the feeling was the FWS was pushing to have more done. Ralph responded that they are not asking to change procedures in the Cooperative Agreement. Testing the assumption is the first step and where we go after that is unknown at this time. The Program will need to look at all of the work that is conducted.
Mike Besson concluded by saying that the Program will consider all monitoring and research that is occurring for pallid sturgeon, see what the results are, and then fill in the holes with monitoring and research needed to answer questions about the benefit of the proposed Program to the pallid sturgeon.
Models for EIS Analysis
Ralph Morgenweck explained that analytical models are used extensively to look at the various alternatives in the EIS and ESA analysis process. The models are not always used the same for EIS and ESA analysis and, in general, the EIS analysis is more broad than ESA analysis. Larry Todd reaffirmed this point and said that the EIS Team, WAPC, and others may use the same models in different fashions. Larry gave a rough timetable for the EIS, beginning with the formulation report in April and a final EIS in November. The Record of Decision will then need to be issued. Larry explained that today the Department of the Interior was presenting the various models being used in the EIS/ESA analysis. Curt Brown gave a brief overview of the various models the EIS Team is using in their analysis using a schematic that showed how the models fit together and where they are used (see attachment). Curt also provided a list of EIS Team technical contacts if anyone needed further information on the models (see attachment).
Hydrology
Mark Butler provided an overview of the inputs and outputs of the North Platte, Central Platte, and South Platte models used in the hydrologic analysis (see attachment). Mark explained that the models are based on the time period 1947-1994, adjusted to present conditions. Each of the models can be used to look at information differently (e.g., time series, percent of time below/above a set level). Mark also explained the various differences in the three models and the philosophy behind the assumptions in the models.
Sediment-Vegetation Model
Tim Randle described some of the various input/output factors of sediment-vegetation model (see attachment). Tim explained that the model looks at the linkages between the process and resources of sediment and vegetation changes over time. The model looks at how vegetation in various stages possibly impacts use of areas by the target bird species. Tim noted that the model is working but is currently only using information from three cross-sections. The model is intended to use at least one cross section per bridge segment and, ideally, one per river mile. Some model verification has been done using three historic periods. Mike Besson asked if the model had been peer-reviewed and Tim said no, because it is still in development. Paul Tebbel suggested that the Peer-review Guidelines developed by the TC be used when peer-reviewing the model. Tim noted that the model is intended for use just in the river channel and if there is concern further from the river (e.g., wet meadows), another approach was needed.
GIS Database and Target Species Analyses
Jan McKee presented information on the development of the GIS maps (see attachment). Jan had brought along the complete map and had it displayed along one wall. Jan explained the various layers in the database. Jan also explained that the land cover classifications used were similar to the ones used in the 1982 analysis of cover type so that comparisons could be made and changes tracked. Jan went through how the information could be used in analysis and noted that data can be connected to a point on the map (e.g., well location and data). The team is finishing the accuracy assessment, and when that is complete, the maps will be done.
Jan also presented information and examples on how the EIS Team will analyze target species information (see attachment). All of the analyses used result in an index of species habitat. For each species, several models are used to determine the index (e.g., hydrology and sediment-vegetation model for whooping cranes).
Economic Models
Randy Christopherson presented information related to the economic models that will be used by the EIS Team. Randy briefly went over the output (e.g., changes in goods produced, income, and employment) and various types of input used in the models. This information is calculated on a county basis. Randy noted that they would also be considering electric power analysis but on a national basis. The EIS Team will likely be looking at the economic impacts on the North Platte, South Platte, and central Platte basins separately.
Open Comment Period
There was discussion regarding the proposed letter from the GC to Don Kraus supporting the changes to the Environmental Account operating plan. This information is included above under "Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District Request".
Future Governance Committee Meetings
February 23 - Water Action Plan, Laramie County Community College (LCCC), Center for Conferences and Institutes (CCI), Room 129, Cheyenne, Wyoming
February 24, Regular GC meeting, LCCC, CCI Room 129, Cheyenne, WY
March 22 - Water Action Plan, Ramada Inn, Kearney, Nebraska
March 23 - Regular GC meeting, Ramada Inn, Kearney, Nebraska
April 26 - Water Action Plan, Denver, Colorado
April 27 - Regular GC meeting, Denver, Colorado
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00 p.m.
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